Indeed.

The terrorists also won with the way Bush used fear poltically...

And McCain will try and use fear again...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214354679...=googlenews_wsj

McCain's Fine Line of Security
Terror Stance Is Favored,
But Approach Risks Bush Parallels
By ELIZABETH HOLMES
June 25, 2008; Page A6

Riverside, Calif. -- One of Sen. John McCain's main strategies for overcoming the deficit he and his party face in opinion polls is to make the election about national security and terrorism.

That approach helped the Republican presidential candidate emerge victorious from the primary field, and the topic remains the top issue on which he bests his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

Even so, Sen. McCain risks accusations from Democrats that he is following the Bush administration by playing into the politics of fear.


The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks made national security a major issue for Republicans. President Bush enjoyed strong public support in the aftermath, helping lift members of his party in 2002 and 2004 elections. In October 2004, shortly before his re-election, 77% of voters listed terrorism as very important to their vote, according to the Pew Research Center. Three years later, the survey found 69% of Americans saw it as very important.

This week, a senior McCain adviser opened the door for swipes that Republicans were playing to terrorism fears with a comment he made during an interview with Fortune magazine. Charlie Black, a McCain confidant, said a terrorist attack on the U.S. before the election would be a "big advantage" to Sen. McCain's candidacy. Mr. Black apologized for the comment Monday, but the Democratic punches already were flying.

"Mr. Black's comments...display a campaign mentality dedicated to the same scare tactics repeatedly used by George W. Bush," said Greg Tarpinian, executive director of Change to Win, an umbrella organization for six unions, which has endorsed Sen. Obama. The group called for Mr. Black's resignation.

Others disagreed. "Charlie Black was impolitic but right," said James Lindsay, the director of the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin, who isn't allied with any campaign. "The political fallout from a terrorist attack would likely help Sen. McCain."

A Gallup survey released Tuesday revealed that 70% of Americans think Sen. McCain would do a good job of handling terrorism, compared with 49% for Sen. Obama.

What is more, 52% of respondents said Sen. McCain would do a better job on terrorism than Sen. Obama. Only a third said Sen. Obama would be better. Slightly more than four in 10 respondents said the candidates' stances on the subject of Iraq and terrorism were important. The economy, by comparison, mattered to half.

The survey results were based on telephone interviews with 1,625 adults conducted June 15-19. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Monday, Sen. McCain decried Mr. Black's comments. "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true," the senator said. "I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear."

Yet Sen. McCain trumpets his senatorial experience in dealing with politically volatile regions. In December, on the day of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination, Sen. McCain expressed his sadness to reporters and discussed his knowledge of the region and his travels there. Sen. McCain added he was the most qualified in the field on national security.

A little over a week later, he won the New Hampshire primary.

Sen. McCain employed the same tactic in Florida. A few days before that contest in January, he accused his closest rival, Mitt Romney, of wanting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Although Mr. Romney denied it, the attack successfully swung the attention from the economy to the war. Sen. McCain narrowly won that primary.

Sen. McCain, the four-term U.S. senator from Arizona and former prisoner of war who spent more than two decades in the Navy, stumps on his patriotism and often mentions his wartime sacrifices. His résumé offers a contrast to that of Sen. Obama, a junior senator from Illinois who has had little experience dealing with national-security issues.

Sen. McCain's campaign has continued that theme since Sen. Obama has emerged as his general-election opponent. Last week, the campaign seized on remarks Sen. Obama made in a television interview praising law enforcement's handling of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. The McCain campaign officials convened conference calls with reporters on three mornings to criticize their opponent. Mr. McCain's foreign-policy director, Randy Scheunemann, accused Sen. Obama of having a "Sept. 10th mind-set."

The Obama campaign responded with its own conference calls, trying to focus the dialogue on an issue other than national security. They also gathered their surrogates to discuss Mr. Black's comments, though nearly 18 hours after the news had been reported.

In the end, staffers insisted the discussion be focused on policy and stopped short of calling for Mr. Black's resignation. Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 Commission, called Mr. Black's remarks "very disappointing.

BTW, I am with Taz and CO on this fear thing. Fear of the kind that the Right and one poster here (who constantly warns us about "radical Islam") would impose on us is debilitating. It distorts the way people think, warps their judgment, makes it more likely that they will desperately choose "tough" solutions that are offered to them. I worry about Al Qaeda. (I worry about a lot of things.) I think that they are serious problem that serious people know needs to be dealt with. But there is no call for living in constant fear of them.

I like the example of Israel that Taz brought up. Graham has brought up the example of Britain, and I have brought up Colombia. All these countries have dealt with terrorism a lot more than we have, yet they live their lives. Yes, they know that they could be killed by terrorists, but they also know that they could be killed by a heart attack (of the people that I have met in Colombia I have met no victims of terrorists, other than those getting phone threats, but I do know one victim of a heart attack. Last I heard she was doing fine.) But they do take such things seriously, and deal with them. Because they are still real, serious problems.

The George Bush/John McCain/Rudy Giuliani "live in constant fear" approach is the wrong one. But so is the "it is all Bush propaganda" dismissal of the problem.

The sadest part of this tale of woe is that USAians turned to a TERRIORISM CZAR to protect us.
Where are our democratic and humanitarian traditions?

An organization is the phenomenon when various individuals associate with each other in order to achieve some common purpose.

A girl scout troop is organized for the purpose of girls learning various skills, facts, and community-oriented values, and for engaging in pleasurable group recreational activities.

A terrorist group is organized for the purpose of perpetrating terror on civilian populations with the view of achieving some political purpose.

Organizations are typically organized as the members determine that they are more likely to achieve their purposes by cooperating than they are by working individually.

I hope that helps people.

The Economist magazine once had an editorial decrying the use of the word "czar" for such positions, suggesting that the word "supremo" would be more appropriate.

I know how you feel.

When I was down at Lackland AFB a couple a weeks ago some youngster was racking off the pipes on his car and had me ducking for cover. It was sort of embarassing, everyone else just stood there looking at me like what the freaking is wrong with you? It don't take you long to develop that instinct and once learned it's never forgot. That's one of the reasons I live in the nice quiet countryside.

Well for myself I'm not afraid of these jokers cause the odds of them personally effecting me are slim to none. But, I do fear for what they want to do. I got no doubt if they could get a hold of a nuke they'd use it. And they'd use it where it would kill a lot of people Don't call it fear mongering cause it's a fact, they want to make the biggest statement they possibly can. What would top them killing tens of thousands in one stroke and making someplace in America uninhabitable for a couple a hundred years?

Well at least you avoided the ludicrous fantasies today, Marine. (So far.)

While I suspect the chances of that happening are fairly low, it is plausible enough to worry about seriously.

But I think it is a bigger problem than Al Qaeda. Any terrorist group or rogue government (yes, I am using that politically incorrect term) could commit mayhem with nukes. So we need to treat the whole problem of loose nukes as a whole other (but related) problem, as Obama and former Senator Sam Nunn have.

I'm going to post a link which will chill you to the bone Arne.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190..._072204,00.html

Would my bones being chilled serve any useful purpose?

This is scary stuff, but then again you have to take the more extreme claims with a grain of salt. Some of the more extreme stories have been around for years, yet nothing has happened.

I don't think it is that easy to purchase suitcase bombs, at least not yet. If it was then I cannot fathom what Al Qaeda is waiting for.

But I do think we need to take all of this seriously. However I would not use it to promote insane policies, simply because scaring people to death is what one normally does when they have an insane policy to promote.

So while I agree with you that this is nothing to laugh at, I am going to pass on the bone chilling.

I think what it does make the case for is the need for us to use our resources against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups more effectively because of the number of unknowns we have out there.

It also suggests that we should be more effective in determining what the effects certain military and other actions will have on our efforts against terrorists like al Qaeda. Iraq explosed the problem of terrorism internationally which is why the 2007 NIE that al Qaeda was as much of a threat (some say more of a threat) as it was in 2001 before 9/11 makes it a real problem. Al Qaeda is stronger, better funded, and more broadly spread than it has ever been in world history. This is not because of our efforts in Afghanistan. It is because of our efforts in Iraq. Terrorist attacks have increased dramatically as a result of our invading Iraq.

As a result, we need to shift our focus from Iraq as soon as possible since al Qaeda's presence and effectiveness in Iraq has been dwindling for the last two years.

Now, as much as Bush and his minions would like us to believe that Iraq remains a front in the war on terror it is just not the case. And we should act accordingly.

Sinse we are making enemies faster than we can kill them off, why don't we just go home or find
some place to go where our presence would be additive and be seen as additive?

In other words Taz, the gravity of the problem should make us want to be even all the more careful to pursue effective policies in neutralizing Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as opposed to scaring us into adopting desperate and unwise policies that seem "tough" but are woefully counterproductive, making the problem worse.

Sounds like a plan for a nutjob like me.

Maybe the real reason we can't stop waging war is that it would run our unemployment rate up
to high?

The concept of balance does not call for jumping towards the other extreme. We are on a tightrope, not a seesaw.

We need to be more cognizant of how our military actions are impacting people in Afghanistan, or we will end up making things worse. We need to help typical people there (and in Pakistan to the extent that we are involved there). But I don't see how we can leave Al Qaeda unmolested.

No.

You mean that instead of Kucinich's proposal for a Department of Peace, we should have an
Al Qaeda Molestation Department?

Us? ---

Again rla -- you ignore the principle cause of our problem IMHO...

The arriogance of the Bush Administration IMHO has a lot to do with these problems...getting an Obama Administration in there can solve a lot of these problems...fairly quickly by retsoring a credible foreign policy approach...that is not so arrogant and myopic...

I don't see where the development of new bureaucracies is a particularly critical issue, although you can always explore the issue of whether a particular proposed reorganization would make sense.

More important to me are the issues of what the government should be aiming for. I don't have any illusions that the government can simply eliminate organized crime. But I do approve of the government seeking to target organized crime groups, doing what can be done to debilitate them. In other words, keep molesting them. I would take that same basic approach with Al Qaeda. I would not just let them leave in peace to do what they wanted to do.

Now that does not mean anything that can be thrown at them should be thrown at them. We don't go into a neighborhood where the Mafia is strong and simply open fire. We should take some care in how we target Al Qaeda as well. But we need to target them.

I think the US, as a sovergn nation, must interact with other sovergn nations in ways that hold them accountable for whatever Al Qaeda-like entities exist in their state--in terms of direct and significant
damage to US Life or Property.

Hold them accountable?

How would we do that?

Through international law enforcement.

Sounds good.

How is that done?

Wadda you think of a "Beat up Al Qaeda" Aggro-amusement park where folks can come along to discharge their extra adrenaline while learning to NOT be afraid of Big Bad Bin Laden.

Interpol and the UN.

How would they do it?

Let us not forget the post of Rla's that I originally responded to, and that is the basis for this line of discussion:



So we are not talking about hunting down your typical international criminal. (Although we could use techniques appropriate for that in all kinds of terrorist cases, including those involving Al Qaeda.) We are talking about what to do when a governement itself is allied with the terrorists.

UN makes international law. Interpol investigates international crimes. Nations who want to be justified by the UN have no choice but to cooperate with international law enforcement.

What if they could care less about what the UN thinks?

Then they make enemies of the majority of peace-seeking nations of the world.

As soon as we stop waging war, there will be much fewer cases to handle.

And so?

What would be the consequences of that? What should the consequences be?

Isn't that what I originally asked, if in different words?

Hmm, I don't know about that. What is the case for thinking that?

Remember the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to establish their base in Afghanistan well before our invasion of Iraq.

And even if that is true, then what about the remnant number of cases that would have to be handled?

Now I do agree that if the U.S. were to present a less aggressive face to the world that less people would be inclined towards terrorism, which would tend to mininimize the fundamental problem being discussed. But there would still be terrorists remaining. And we would still have the Taliban fighting to reestablish control of Afghanistan.

The consequences are different depending on the size of the nation.

If you are a small nation, the consequence is little or no cooperation from the world in helping you grow and gain power.

If you are a large nation or a superpower, the consequence is you are seen as a threat to the world and you risk being ganged-up on.

Same as above.

I don't know what you are referring to here.

If I'm not mistaken, rla was referring to international crimes committed by United States citizens and officials.

Look at Myanmar and North Korea. They are very isolated yet their governments have long continued in behavior that most of the world finds repugnant.

Now I don't thereby advocate that we invade those countries. But my point is isolation does not always change behavior, at least not any time soon. And when we are talking about harboring serious terrorist bases, we are talking about behavior that needs to be urgently changed. (At least we were in the case of Afghanistan.) I would say that if the only way to do that is by aggressive methods, that aggressive methods may very well be called for.

So far no large nations are aiding terrorists, at least not to any serious extent. But I would agree we that we would be talking about something very different in such cases, in terms of what is feasible.



I quoted the post of Rla that set of this line of discussion. Look at my response to that.

Even if he was, I was not talking about that.

Let us grant that is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. That does not mean that the Taliban harboring major bases of one of the most important and most nihilistic terrorist groups in years was not an urgent problem.

They aren't exactly isolated. I believe they are getting plenty of support from China. It wouldn't surprise me if they were China's pawns used to distract us in a bigger game.

As long as those crimes are recognized by the UN and the level of aggressive methods are justified in the eyes of the UN, it's still international law enforcement.

That has yet to be proven. That's where interpol comes in. We have yet to follow the money all the way to an income-generating source in many if not most of the international terrorist cases.

The problem with the US strategy of identifying emerging potential terriosts groups and destroying them with overt and covert methods is that the groups identified tend to be the Emergent Leadership in that social system. It is time for the US to start talking openly about getting out of the business of maintaining an Empire.

That's true, but doesn't show even more just how complicated and difficult the course you recommend is? You often have nations that will play these kinds of games and consort with the most repugnant kinds of regimes.



Didn't we get some kind of authorization from the UN on Afghanistan? Anyway I don't know that we will always get authorization from the UN, even with a very compelling case. Members of the Security Council, particularly the veto wielding members, will often play games. (China is one of those veto wielding members. And it is not as though we never play our own games, but that does not contradict the point here.)

I am all for trying to use the UN, as I think we will all be better off, especially in the long run, if we can strengthen the UN in these matters. But I think that we will have to wait a very long time before we can seriously and predictably rely on the UN.



I have no problem with that. I would hope we would follow such trails no matter where they lead. But my point is that we cannot realistically regard that as the answer to all of the problems in all of the cases involved here.

Umm, Al Qaeda was not actually a "potential" terrorist group as long ago as 1993 when they bombed the WTC.

And you want to get out of the business of being an empire?

Let's talk about that in terms of international law enforcement:

We can pull back our forces from the world and the UN does nothing, for all kinds of reasons. No empire, and no international law enforcement.

We can get the UN to authorize the actions of our military actions in the world, which would "legitimize" them. But lots of people would simply regard that as the UN doing our bidding and putting a fig leaf on the exercise of our power. (They would be right, wouldn't they?) So you get international law enforcement, but you would still have an empire.

We could get other countries to actually send enough forces to constitute more than the pathetically manned peacekeeping forces we usually get nowadays. Such forces could actually repel invasions, clear out terrorist havens, etc. The UN could be expected to act aggressively when that was called for. You get international law enforcement, and you have no empire. Great solution. The problem is we are very far from that.

I think that the actual situation is a combination of all of the above, plus the U.S. in a go it alone mode or the U.S. in concert with other allies mode (like under the aegis of NATO), and will be for decades. What we need to try to do is keep changing the mix until we get to the most desirable mode.

If we were to use Interpol more, we may find a connection here too. I personally suspect that the current administration doesn't want to use Interpol for fear of what they may find out about their own involvement in international crimes.

I don't expect total cooperation and total success from the international law enforcement approach. But I do believe that it's the safer way to go in the long-run then bypassing the UN in a doctrine of unilateral preemptive war.

Again I have no problem with catching criminals no matter who they are. My purpose here is not to carry water for this Administration, which largely deserves contempt. If some members deserve prison sentences as well, then so be it.



I agree in using and strengthening the international law enforcement approach as much as possible. What I am saying is that we have huge gaps in the capacity of that approach, and we cannot totally rely on it now and seriously deal with a whole range of problems, when the leaders of governments themselves are often key parts of the problems.

Arneoker, I said before in here that I don't take you for any kind of fool, and I don't, so I also don't think that you are a gullible dupe, and if I have conveyed that impression, it was not at all intended ...

And the points that need to be made are the points you make in the little window above here ....

THOSE GROUPS, OR RATHER THEIR MEMBERS, ARE IN FACT HUNTED ....

They are not tolerated ....

Sometimes, it is as if the world hasn't been invented yet in here, it seems to me ....

And it is a law enforcement function ...

IT IS NOT A MILITARY FUNCTION ....

It would become a military function if there were a need for that kind of firepower, but the military is a last resort ....

If the military is required to enforce the law, then that function is handled by the military police, not armor units and mechanized infantry and Marines ....

By the time Marines are necessary, law enforcement has long since broken down ....

Jefferson sent in the Marines against the Barbary Coast pirates because they were pirate states ....

They extorted money from nations like Great Britain and America through the use of violence ...

Terrorizing ...

So Jefferson gave them a dose of the U.S. Marines ...

I know and respect people who are in law enforcement, and some of this talk in here seems to imply that they are sleeping at the switch ...

That talk insults them, and what they are doing, which is unheralded and unsung on purpose ....

What I am sick of from the politicians is FEAR-MONGERING ....

I am damn sick of it, in fact ....

We don't have TAY-RIST attacks because professional people are and have been acting professionally, doing their jobs to keep that from happening ...

Does it happen?

Obviously, it has ....

But then there are also bank robberies all the time up here where I am, despite the police ....

There are rapes and murders all the time, despite the police ...

There is drug dealing going on all the time, despite the police ....

So should we call out the Marines?

There is my point, Arneoker .....

PERSPECTIVE ....

Proper perspective is when you do worry about your hypertension ahead of some TAY-RIST threat ....

That will likely hurt you sooner ....

And as for me, I have been shot at and missed and shot at and hit ....

If you are shot at and missed, well, so what, really ...

You hear the noise and feel the wind, but that is all ...

If you are shot at and hit, well, you might feel some pain, but you get over it ...

If you are shot at and hit and killed ....

You get to find out if the stories of the Valkyries are just myth, or if they are real ...

And you don't have to worry about being behind on your bills, anymore, or if your life insurance policy is paid up, or if you can pay your mortgage ....

And so ...

To put it more succinctly, George W. Bush's massive military response to a THREAT which has always existed and always will exist is downright WASTEFUL and STUPID ...

Like the man, himself ....

He has OUR American military haring all over God's creation, looking for the will-o-the-wisp ....

In the course of doing so, he makes so much dust that it becomes impossible for the professional police to be able to properly do their job ...

AND HE IS BANKRUPTING US, WHICH GUARANTEES OUR INSECURITY FOR YEARS TO COME, WHICH MAKES US VULNERABLE IN A WAY WE HAVE NEVER BEEN IN MY LIFETIME ...

George W. Bush isn't competent to be a dog catcher, so America goes and makes him its chief executive officer and commander-in-chief of its military ....

Now there is a statement of the times that we are in alright ....

THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH EVER is ruled by an ex-drunk with a fried brain ....

I wonder how the history books will treat that phenomena ....

It's like a Mel Brooks parody of that one Clint Eastwood movie where Clint Eastwood made the little fellow the sheriff of the town, and everybody in the town then had to kowtow to the little guy ...

And so ...

COMMON GROUND!

They are and have been taken seriously for years now, Arneoker ....

You just never saw the people who were doing that work standing up every day and beating themselves on the back about it, and bragging to us about how good a job they did to keep us safe one more day, so they could extort some more money from us to keep us safe tomarrow ....

That all changed with George W. Bush ...

Bush is always fixin' to get with it, but he never gets there ...

That has been his history since he was the governor of Texas ....

A lot of big talk, but messes left behind that other people then have to clean up ....

And who was it that sent those pursuit jets haring out after nothing over the Atlantic Ocean that day when 9-11 went down?

How come the Hamilton Commission never got an answer to that?

BY HOW?

By sending the American military out all over God's creation at a cost of BILLIONS of dollars of borrowed money per week?

By smashing the **** out of other countries and their people who aren't al Qaida?

How proportional to the threat is that response?

And people up here believe that if there is an Osama bin Laden, and he is as smart as George W. Bush says he is, that Osama bin Laden would know that the way to destroy the United States is the same way that Ronald Raygun said he destroyed the Soviet Union ....

Make them bankrupt themselves in a militaristic arms race ....

And so he is doing it ...

And he is succeeding ....

And all it took him was a couple of borrowed airplanes to pull it off ....

And well, a fool at the helm here in America ....

That was the most essential element of Osama bin Laden's plan, assuming he exists, AND WE AMERICANS FELL FOR THE BAIT ...

AND NOW, WE HAVE DESTROYED OUR NATION'S ECONOMY ...

HEY, WE'RE PRETTY SMART, AREN'T WE ....

Burn down the farm to save the farm ....

And so ...

You and me are a team, Marine ...

A whole bunch of very competent and professional law-enforcing Americans would, Marine, and you know it ...

And if that wasn't sufficient, then the U.S. Marines would be called in to neutralize their @$$ ....

And if we are too weak to stop them, and maybe we finally are, then like other disappeared civilizations, Marine, we will go into the history books ...

The Romans willingly opened up their gates to the barbarians who destroyed them, after all, and three days later, Rome was history ....

And you know that history as well as I do, Marine ....

It's the history of people ....

It's the story of how people come to pass on the face of this earth as nations ....

It's a story that is as old as the Bible ....

And just because we think that we are THE GREATEST NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH EVER doesn't stop that history from happening to us ...

The price of freedom is ETERNAL VIGILANCE ...

And ETERNAL means more than five or ten minutes duration ...

And so ...