« The New York Times Must Be Saved – and With It … Air Travel: Folha, Brazil
For an Obama on the Make, Egypt is the Wise Choice: Kuwait Times, Kuwait »
The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Not Having Anything to Fear
For Democrats in Congress, however, that does not appear likely to happen anytime soon:
I really want to know: when our nation’s stalwart right-wing warriors (along with Harry “Fighting the Good Fight” Reid) become petrified at the thought of keeping Muslim Terrorists in our prisons, what exactly do they fantasize will happen? What bad things specifically do they fear are going to occur? I asked that question last night on Twitter and these were some of the responses I received:
Atrios: crawl up through our toilets and steal our vital essence
GeorgiePorger: Abu Ghraib in their backyard?
akaBruno: They’ll join up with T-Bag, Lincoln Burrows and Michael Scofield and break out of Fox River
JonahKeri: That they’ll turn this into a lawless, chaotic state and make people live in a constant state of riled-up fear. Oh wait…
One right-wing warrior-blogger tried to answer the question earnestly by pointing out that in November, 200o, a Muslim Terrorist violently attacked a prison guard. A report from the Dallas Morning News regarding prisoner-on-guard attacks found that in 2007 alone — just in Texas — there were “more than three dozen staff assaults with weapons.” But that’s a perfect distillation of the fear-wallowing right-wing mindset: hey, one time, 9 years ago, a Muslim Terrorist attacked a prison guard, so now we have to keep all Muslim Terrorist-prisoners in cages on a Cuban island with no trial because I’m too scared to keep them in an American prison.
And via GG, Dan Froomkin on what it takes to transform Democrats into “mewling babies” — not much:
Here’s one thing that hasn’t changed in the Obama era: Republicans are still able to come up with scare tactics that turn Senate Democrats into a terrified and incoherent bunch of mewling babies.
It’s hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than the suggestion that bringing some of the terror suspects currently incarcerated in Guantanamo to high-security prisons in America will pose a threat to local communities.
It is nothing more than a bogeyman argument, easily refuted with a little common sense. (Isn’t that what prisons are for?) But that’s assuming you don’t spend your every moment living in fear of Republican attack ads questioning your devotion to the security of the country. Or that you have a modicum of respect for the intelligence of the American public.
Ah well. Old habits die hard, I guess. And Senate Democrats apparently remain an easily frightened bunch, after eight years of faint-hearted submission.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Not Having Anything to Fear”
90-6. Now THAT is bi-partisanship, isn't?
Oh. Wait. Of course it isn't.
It wasn't a LEFT-leaning bi-partisan vote, so it doesn't count, I guess.
And if you truly believe that your fabled Defenders of the Righteous Principles of the Left are so completely feckless, what does that say about those leaders YOU chose to vote in to represent your interests, and your ability to choose leaders?
You seem to be accusing yourself of incompetency.
I've been actually enjoying some of Greewald's posts lately as he has actually been talking about the party in power and trying to hold their feet to the fire. Like this (from your cite):
“Rather than scoff at the inane fear-mongering or point out simple facts to reveal its idiocy, Democratic “leaders” such as Harry Reid echo the right-wing fears in order to prove how Serious and Tough they are”
We essentially have the dumb leading the dumber. That's just great for the country isn't it?
I've been actually enjoying some of Greewald's posts lately as he has actually been talking about the party in power and trying to hold their feet to the fire.
I like that about GG, too.
Neither side shows much spine in this. Both right and left show true bipartisanship by doing the job for terrorism. One side promotes fear and te other falls for it. Neither remember that the primary product of a terrorist attack is not thousands killed, but millions afraid. For every real threat, both sides manufacture 100s of politically motivated panic attacks.
To win a war on terror, one must accept that sooner or later a small number of suicidal fanatics may(will) suceed in killing people or destroying something. Vigillence not withstanding, wars have casualties on both sides. You don't win that war by disdaining your own nation's principles in a misguided attempt to avoid casualties. You win by going about your daily lives defying the fear engendered by the other side.
If right and left use the terrorist's fear mongering for political maneuvering, you succumb to your enemy's only weapon. The battle is in our minds, not within the machinations of the enemy. It's like Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Let’s try to think this one through.
When a murdering gang member in the U.S. is convicted and sent to a maximum security prison, he is basically on his own. His old gang would love to help him break out, but they aren’t anxious to give up their lives in the process.
Prison guards in the U.S. leave work each day and go home to their families. How hard would it be for a determined group of extremists to find out which guards are on duty between the terrorist prisoner and freedom, kidnap the families of the guards and before sawing off the heads of the children, forcing the guards to release the terrorists?
Seems like a fairly plausible scenario.
It’s easy to rant and rave about making an empty gesture like closing Gitmo without actually thinking though the problems that would cause, but like everything with liberals, it’s the sentiment that counts, not the results.
Seems like a fairly plausible scenario.
As plausible as the silly premise of 24. I think the plot lines from 'The Simpsons' is more plausible.
jwest
Your premise demonstrates my point. Your fear mongering assumes that 1. terrorists are loyal to individuals in their cabal, 2. terrorists have unfettered freedom within the US regardless of all our security organizations, and 3. terrorists are super villains who can defeat any security plan.
Your paranoid scenarios serve them very well. I hope the political points you believe you make are worth inflating the fear rhetoric that terrorists want you to spout. You've got them right where they want you.
Not quite as satisfying as handing Clinton his hat over nationalized healthcare, but, it's a start.
I'm guessing that the real fears of these politicians revolve around the unresolved status of the detainees, not whether or not they might be able to escape a prison. What happens when Obama finally determines how to try them, and some get released because we don't have the kind of chain of evidence required in the civilian court system? They'll get released into some Congressman's district, and he'll have to answer to his constituents for that.
Wouldn't it make sense to resolve the status issue and try the detainees first, before moving the venue where they're held? The latter is just a politically correct ploy anyway- what difference does it make if we hold people indefinitely in Cuba or do the same thing on US soil?
Neither remember that the primary product of a terrorist attack is not thousands killed, but millions afraid.
Hemm, that has got to be the most Churchillian line I have seen in, like, forever. Beautiful. Your entire comment, as well.