Whatever McCain said or distanced himself from after he said it. Domestically, the country becomes better when a the democrats run stuff because they are usually for the common good. And Internationally we can become better, too, depends on who the actual President is. The republicans works to line their own pockets, diminish the middle class to the working poor, and usually claim that because they are esteemed republicans they are better morally. Ha, see Mark Foley, Dave Vitter, Larry Craig, really moralistic guys. Yeah, the GOP is sure full of themselves, so much so, that they seem to forget anything that conveniences them in front of congress or the justice department. They remember stuff real well when writing a book or something that helps line their pockets, though. So, let's just remember to vote for the guy who cares more about the top 1 or 2 percent of the population and screw everyone else to death. The guys who are in the pockets of big oil, the AMA, anything that makes big money, who usually touts big tax cuts (that mostly benefits the rich, although, I guess people don't realize that, they like the "fuzzy math" I guess) and promises to create things for the benefit of the American people, only to not be able to actually fund it (i.e. No Child Left Behind Act) when their economic plan falls to pieces, for the bigger need to push to republican agenda, big military, next worse thing to a dictator and possibly have a guy like Dick Cheney as his main advisor. Thank you for listening.

"I also think we, the public, have more common sense than many political strategists give us credit for."

Based on what?

Yeah,
One thing I could point out is that these terrorist organizations know what they are doing when they do stuff. They also know that they can help manipulate American politics with their actions. Like when Iran let the Hostages go the day Jimmy Carter left office. They manipulated our politics and they knew it. And, with the help our own media that loves stories like that, so they can concentrate on what's really important to them, the ratings.(i.e. The early version of Nightline with Frank Reynolds and soon after Ted Koppel) Did we as a whole know? I, for one, always felt that way.

I don't agree that it's a given that McCain would in fact benefit from such an attack. One of the few talking points that the Bushies, and McCain have is that NO such attack has taken place under their watch. The Spanish voted out their government in the aftermath of the bombings there. Having citizens blown into pink mist is not, IMO a vote getter.

Remember also, those working for a campaign are not necessarily the voice of a campaign. Any and all opinions coming out of any campaign should be vetted by those charged with such matters, including the candidate before anyone elects on their own stead to run off at the mouth. Let the candidate make any and all opinion statements. If he (or she) sticks his or her foot in it, then so be it. I never fail to be amazed at how many stupid things are said and done by people attached to political campaigns, let alone the candidates themselves. I guess it's difficult to stamp down big egos.

One cannot expect such a statement to get a pass, regardless of its veracity - or lack of it - when mountains are made out the mole hills of flag pins and hand bumps.

B-tone

re BA post #3
"One thing I could point out is that these terrorist organizations know what they are doing when they do stuff. They also know that they can help manipulate American politics with their actions. Like when Iran let the Hostages go the day Jimmy Carter left office. They manipulated our politics and they knew it."

My history sees it a bit different, there was a little thing called the "October Surprise" that involved certain unnamed republicans makin a deal with the ole Ayatollah as I recall, hmmm I wonder who the terrorists really are. Manipulate politics, I call it treason, but you can call it that if ya want. :)

Hey, pablito, what's a little bit of treason here and there?

It helps to keep things humming...

Typical propaganda piece from the left. We have strawmen, lies, inciting class hatred, and references to Hitler. Nice job, you might want to throw in some racial agitation next time, just consider it icing on the cake

Oh, but remember that's not inciting fear, inciting fear is when Bush had those planes flown into those buildings because he's pure evil and only wants to wreak havoc and destruction on humanity like all capitalists.

Doug, having read the whole piece, it wasn't an attack on Mr Black. Is your cynicism about the left running on a hair trigger or did you not actually read the article?

The fear that Bush has exploited so skilfully since 9/11 had nothing to do with the attack on the twin towers but the post attack reaction.

Another Bush to Hitler comparison. The hate will consume you. You guys really have to get over it.

Hitler comparisons are perfectly valid, when used with specificity, as here. It's you knee-jerk right-wingers who can't separate your emotions from your thoughts when it comes to world history.

Some interesting observations here, but...

it is a fact that the Bush administration (with plenty of complicity from Congress) has systematically used fear tactics to manipulate public opinion and justify its policies.

This particular statement is fundamentally untrue. While the Bush administration may have tried to manipulate public opinion to justify its policies (just like any administration or political group), the charge of fearmongering still doesn't make any sense. If anything the Bush administration has downplayed the very real threats in the world and gone out of their way to assure us that everything is okay and that we're being proactive to prevent another 9/11.

In fact, the essence of their manipulation of the public is the generation not of fear, but of a false sense of confidence in the government to protect out security, which they have demonstrated very little ability to actually do.

Dave

there was a little thing called the "October Surprise" that involved certain unnamed republicans makin a deal with the ole Ayatollah as I recall, hmmm I wonder who the terrorists really are.

The 'October Surprise' seems to have run its course as an election tactic. Remember how the Bush admin was going to pull bin Laden out of a hat just before the '04 election? Never happened.

Now, was that because:
a) Bush Rove realized that producing Osama at that point would have been crassly obvious to anyone but an idiot, or
b) because bin Laden had not then, and still has not, been captured?

You decide.

Also, as B-Tone observes, a national crisis right before an election doesn't guarantee an incumbent victory, as we saw in Spain in '03. The electorate - rightly or wrongly - held Aznar's government responsible for attracting Islamic terrorists to Madrid, and kicked them out.

Nobody in my (admittedly limited) circle of friends is even remotely close to being afraid of the threat of terrorism; it's just not part of most American's lives, no matter how much the administration allegedly "fearmongers." As I drive around town, work, go shopping, etc., day after day I never run into anyone who is in fear of terrorists.

So, if the administration is in fact "fearmongering," they need to get a new mongerer; the current one is incredibly inept, because we're not afraid.

That's the main flaw in the terrorists' strategy; few people outside the Islamic countries are terrified; even the Europeans, who have been attacked much more than the US, are not in "terror."

Most people realize "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Now, the price of oil? We're ALL terrified.

Dave, do you remember those color-coded terror alerts that were conveniently elevated whenever the public needed to be distracted from something else? More recent examples: claims that complying with FISA would undermine our ability to track terrorists; claims that the Iraq insurgency represented a threat to national and world security and suggestions that Al Qaeda leaders could gain power equivalent to Hilter, Stalin, and Pol Pot; using politically charged terms like "appeasement"; I could go on and on with examples.

Doug,

Parody is a delicate art form that requires enticement, not command, to make it's point. When used to bludgeon people it becomes incoherent mush, leaving the reader unsure what the tyro parodist was saying and concluding that it wasn't worth reading.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Yeah, but The Bush Administration, whenever they are trying to push the agenda they bring up "9/11" almost every time. Their agenda seems to include illegal wiretapping of Americans, and good old congress doesn't raise a finger to stop it, coincidentally or not. Neither would the "refreshed" right wing justice department. Among a lot of other things designed to take away our civil liberties. But, as long as the republicans remain in office I guess we're supposed to feel safe. While all our unrelated civil liberties slowly disappear.
Also, it wouldn't take wiretapping to make us secure it would just take extra security, in general. Especially, as decided seemingly...after the fact that more security at airports were necessary, inconvenient but necessary. And a lot of other security implementations that the Bush Administration or corporations(i.e. big business) don't want. Like at the ports. Still not enough security there. But I guess somehow that makes wiretapping ok. Geesh

Good point Clavos, it's interested to note how effective or ineffective the fearmongering has been. I claim that it has been effective, not so much in how we live our day to day lives - you're right, we don't walk around "afraid" of terrorism on a daily basis - but in what we (the collective we), incited by a compliant and complicit mainstream media, tend to believe: namely, that it's OK for us to become gradually a less and less democratic society in the name of "security."

To comment #17. As I'm very fond of telling my daughters.....

...no yeahbutts!!!!!

Dave:

...a false sense of confidence in the government to protect out security, which they have demonstrated very little ability to actually do.

So why haven't there been any successful terror attacks on US soil since 9/11? Is it because the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies are in fact very effective in protecting our security, or because the assorted would-be terrorists are even more inept than they are?

...Or because said terrorists never were much of a threat in the first place?

I disagree with Dave to the extent that, as I see it, the Bushies have been performing a balancing act with regard to maintaining both a sense of fear and a sense of security pretty much running concomitantly and contradictorily.

I agree with Clav in that I know of no one who is quaking in fear of eminent attack. Of course the fact is there is no way one can go about functioning in daily life in constant fear. There is no way one can really prepare for an attack, in any case.

Look at what happens in Iraq, or even in Israel. There is very real, palpable danger of such attacks pretty much 24/7. Yet people still go about their day to day lives, going to market places, meeting and eating in restaurants, standing on line for jobs, walking in funeral processions. Life goes on. Short of open fighting, artillery barrages and the like which would send people scurrying for cover, people still must work and eat and live their lives.

Here in the U.S., the likelyhood of being the victim of a terrorist attack is probably less than the odds of being struck by lightning, or getting a good meal at Dennys.

I don't see that the Bushies have succeeded much in either vein. While we haven't been victimized within our borders since 9/11, there really has been little accomplished in the way of security measures that would effectively prevent some kind of attack via our seaports. Even attacks via air transportation is still a very real possibility if the various news organizations are correct in a number of reports which recount security failures at airports. Overall, it just leaves me more convinced of the general ineptitude of the Bush administration.

B-tone

Point taken, Jon, but I still wonder how much of that complicity is spelled A P A T H Y?

The reason I question the administration's efficacy in molding and indoctrinating the public is its abysmally low ratings with that public. I truly doubt that very many people believe anything the Bush people tell them (assuming, of course, that they are even listening).

Frankly, I have a rather low opinion (as you may have seen on these threads) of the American public's attention span on the best of days.

ok than sutract that part of it.

The reason I question the administration's efficacy in molding and indoctrinating the public is its abysmally low ratings with that public.

The two factors might not be as synchronous as all that. Maybe they don't have to be smart or well thought of to be successful at certain things. Between the media, and natural human tendencies, maybe it doesn't take an Einstein to manipulate public attitudes and feelings. And lack of popularity doesn't necessarily mean ineffectiveness in all things.

I have a rather low opinion ... of the American public's attention span on the best of days.

So do the mass media - as witness the fact that you can't watch a goddamned TV show for ten freaking minutes without it being interrupted for commercials.

But it's a chicken-and-egg scenario: are TV programs structured that way because the American public has a short attention span, or have people been conditioned to have a short attention span by the structure of the programs?

We'll be right back after these messages.

Well, Jon, now you're positing some sort of Manchurian Candidate or 1984 scenario; and while I know such brainwashing is possible (to a limited degree) on a personal basis, I strongly doubt the Bush crew have the kind of either expertise or charisma to accomplish it.

I think the much more likely and reasonable explanation is a combination of apathy, self-absorption and no small degree of stupidity on the part of the public, who when they don't see an immediate effect on themselves personally, invariably "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Clav,

I don't quite understand what you are suggesting, though. What, IYO, should we be thinking or doing? Should we be erecting armed camps? Should we all start packing heat?

I'm just not sure how, or even why, we should be doing anything more than we are. As I noted, life goes on. How vigilent can we be? Should people in say, Ogden, Utah be as watchful and wary as, say those within the DC Beltway or in Manhattan? And just what should Big Apple residents be doing? How many times will we experience people crying wolf? I think the color warning system has proven to be more ongoing comic fodder for late nite talk show hosts than it has proven to have any particular efficacy in effecting heightened awareness amongst the populace.

Do you find that people elsewhere are, in fact, more vigilent than Americans? If so, where and how?

B-tone

I want to say something eloquent about this article, I really do; but it's just stupid.

You misunderstand me, B-tone. I'm not saying the American public needs to do anything vis-a-vis the "war on terror." I don't think we do, other than to pay attention to what our government is doing and vote according to our individual wishes in that regard.

Personally, I feel no fear nor danger whatever (nor does anyone I know), and I'm of the opinion that the only Americans in real and immediate danger from terrorists are those in uniform and civilians traveling in Muslim countries.

Jon is saying that the Bush administration is preying on and manipulating the fears of the public to support their strategy in Iraq.

My contention to Jon is simply that the public is not paying attention for a variety of reasons, and that the majority of them are hardly aware, much less afraid.

Majority of people don't care, in general. Money dictates the way television works in terms of commercials. And I myself most of the time get too involved in my video games to really care or keep up with the news. The last news I watched was about the mine collapsed in utah or colorado, wherever it was, and right when I saw Bob Murray hijack the media like he did, I knew, the first time I saw him, he was just trying cover his a$$. I almost laughed myself to death. And that alone turned me completely off all the 24 hour news channels. I never watch any of them anymore. American media despite what they say about themselves, has no integrity and lacks quality. Wasn't it Mike Wallace who decided Reagan was "The Great Communicator"? Ha, he was also terrible with the economy, the environment, created huge deficits and wouldn't fund AIDS research because it was an obvious sign of the Americans peoples moral decay. I doubt he was really responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union either, like he always gets credit. He probably just happened to be in office when the inevitable happened. And was basically a figure head. And anyway, I rarely if ever watch the regular news either. I get the basic news off the Internet. It wouldn't matter if peoples' attention span is long or not, the networks try to get ratings...period. It doesn't matter if people don't like it or love it, that's the way that is.

"I'm just not sure how, or even why, we should be doing anything more than we are. As I noted, life goes on."

How I long for the day when a politician will echo those comments. I'm not holding my breath.

Brother Sobel, your basic premise here is just wrong, that it is wrong or evil to use fear to motivate people. Fear is a useful and adaptive part of basic mammalian biology. The propriety depends on how and when fear is used for motivation.

For example, if you're playing in the street and someone screams at you and scares you to get you to jump out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, then they've done you a very valuable service.

Also, using fear does not at all necessarily constitute demagoguery - if the person in fact believes that there's something to be afraid of. As it applies to Iraq, perhaps we did have scary stuff to be legitimately afraid of. If President Bush in fact believed what he said, then it's not demagoguery - whether you think his fears were correct or not.

As to "fearmongering," I'd count your nonsense comments about "Hitler's playbook." That's just trying to demagougically scare people with the utterly ridiculous and spurious connection that Bush is supposedly even vaguely like Hitler.

Al,

Spoken like a true bulldog. You bare those libertarian fangs ole buddy.

big Al,

You said:
"That's just trying to demagougically scare people with the utterly ridiculous and spurious connection that Bush is supposedly even vaguely like Hitler."


Well ummm uhh his grandfather Prescott sure seemed to like him :). Good ole Union Banking Corporation, along with his buddy Harriman were doing everything in their power to assist old Adolph. In fact the newspaper of record in NY at the time even had a headline on the front page calling him Hitler's angel!

I personally find many similarities besides his grandfather assisting Hitler in his rise to power, and even into the war iteslf. For one thing extreme egomania, coupled with a messianic complex, and one of his most famous quotes.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Connections between the Bush's and Adolf, oh nooooooooo Al, sure bubba, and this coming from a libertarian too, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Ah, Al, you raise an interesting point. But your analogy of yelling at a kid to get out of the way doesn't hold. In that case, there's an actual, obvious danger to the kid. We're talking about a situation where the fearmongering has gone on, and on, and on, long after the erroneous intelligence was exposed etc. etc. etc. The reason it continued to work, to some degree, is I guess, is related to what Clavos says about the public not paying attention. I say they're paying just enough attention to get the distorted, amplified message that somethin big is out there tryin to git us so we better shut up and do what we're told.

I have a rather low opinion ... of the American public's attention span on the best of days.

So do the mass media - as witness the fact that you can't watch a [edited for appropriateness] TV show for ten freaking minutes without it being interrupted for commercials.

But it's a chicken-and-egg scenario: are TV programs structured that way because the American public has a short attention span, or have people been conditioned to have a short attention span by the structure of the programs?

The mass media in America has created the attention span of Americans. The constant stream of commercial interruptions on radio and TV has effectively shortened attention span. ADHD? ADD? Bollocks!!! It's a great way to addict kids to Ritalin and dumb them down even more.

We are all wasting our time on this. Better we should be discussing the actual policies of McCain and Obama than these distractions.

Bliffle,

Policies? These clowns don't have policies at all because there are no options for policies in America. You guys are broke, and you're stuck in a swamp in Iraq. That, and all the bad economic consequences flowing from being stuck in Iraq is sure to impoverish you in the not too distant future.

Policy, to the degree that it is made, is made by the mass media - like dumbing down the population of the States (and anyone else unfortunate enough to have to listen to or watch American commercial radio or TV) to a level of idiocy and sheeplishness. Just look at the crap called "entertainment" in the American media! If you haven't got time to watch, just wander over to the other sections of this site.

How can anybody with his head stuck in dung make an intelligent decision, anyway?

We have to demand better of our officials. Agree or disagree with policy, but make them do the work to have policy. Otherwise we endup with a guy who's flying by the seat of his pants, and any pilot will tell you that is disastrous. Just look at GWB. There's a guy without a thought in his head who just does things that he thinks his best friends will like. No forethought, no plan, no discussion.

Well, Bliff, you could start by demanding a little honesty as to who they are. McCain has been stinking up American politics for a while now, but the "angel of change" seems unwilling to produce anything so simple as real birth certificate. Mind you, I support Obama. He is everything America seems to stand for - plastic values, plastic reality, plastic truths - and a generous dollop of Jew-hating, anti-Israel scum to boot.

My kind of goy guy, madame.

Obama seems to be an attractive candidate looking for a policy.

@#41:

Second that, bliff!

Obama is playing the politics of fear also.

Last week he said in a speech at a campaign evenet that the GOP will say "Did I mention he's black," insinuating that anyone who doesn't support him is a racist.

It's still the first quarter and Obama has already grown very cocky and overconfident. He and his supporters had better watch who they're calling a racist because there are a lot of people in this country that are sick and tired of being calld racist because they don't blindly agree with everything Obama says and does.

Brother Sobel sez: the fearmongering has gone on, and on, and on, long after the erroneous intelligence was exposed

That requires a very careful way of taking things to suit you without regard for the other 99% of the picture. That is, you have to take it that the only reason for going into Iraq - and furthermore the only reason for the larger efforts against Islamic militants - was specifically, narrowly, only the widely and reasonably held belief that Saddam had WMDs. There's a little more to it than that.

And now would you say that it is illegitimate or demagogic to argue that Iran getting nukes is a real and grave danger to US and the world? Is that just something that W has made up to please the paymasters at Halliburton?

Brother Barger,

Bear something in mind, please. The fantasies of the opponents of the fighting in Iraq differ from the fantasies of the candidates in your presidential elections, but the two have one basic point in common. They are fantasies. Yes Virginia, the Iranians ARE working on a nuclear device with which to attack Europe and Israel. And yes Virginia, Saddam Hussein HAD weapons of mass destruction - weapons that he had moved to Syria before the Americans attacked.

When you live under the shadow of these threats, like I do, you pay careful attention to them - it could mean your life not to.

Does this mean that your soldiers should remain in Iraq? No. THAT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PAYMASTERS AT HALIBURTON. But, it does work to bankrupt your country, and to slowly but surely transfer your wealth to us - heh heh, Isaiah 60 pops up where you least expect it, doesn't it?

Shabbat Shalom,
Ruvy

Al, It was a reasonably held belief that pre-invasion Iraq had WMDs? Could you substantiate that, because I don't recall it that way?

And no, Iran getting nukes is not a real and grave danger to the world or the USA. If it did have them and did use them, both debatable in themselves, the response would be little short of catastrophic for Iran.

Ruvy, if it is true that Iran is developing nukes, it is highly unlikely that they would use them as anything other than a bargaining chip, as the risk of the country being turned into a glassified wasteland if it did is so high.

Similarly, if Iraq had WMDs, which has never been proven as far as I know, and they were actually sent to Syria, then it shows that Syria is capable of restraint as they haven't been used.

All the people of the countries within Israel's nuclear attack radius live under the the shadow of actual nuclear attack, not a possible attack in the future, which is your situation.

Furthermore, as you are not involved in running Israel, you don't need to worry yourself about the possibility of such a future attack. There are better informed people doing that for you...

Chris, I do recall the UN weapons inspectors' insistence that there were no WMDs, which meant that Bush 'n' Blair's insistence that there were had to be correct, because as everyone knows, the UN is always wrong about everything.

[/sarcasm]

Chris, your ignorance of the Middle East is encyclopedic.

Debkafiles reported in January of 2003 that Saddam Hussein had moved his missiles out of the country to Syria at night on trucks, and they were stored in the Beka'a. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. They are there, and our intelligence has confirmed their presence. In addition, Debkafiles has reported that the Iranians have developed a nuclear device to fit onto the Shihab 3 missiles they have, missiles that can reach Europe - where you live. That you haven't the sense to be concerned shows the depth of your ignorance.

Finally, the Iranians are attempting to rebuild their empire - and have a four front missile command in western Asia. Their restored power and glory are not bargaining chips for them, but the fact that you would even think so shows how ignorant you are of how people think here.

A powerless Arab loudmouth threatening us with extermination is one thing. It's just the background noise against which we Israelis think, kind of like Muzak. A government with nuclear weapons threatening extermination is quite another issue.

The "wiser heads" you refer to "running" this country are mainly concerned about getting their asses into a bunker when the missiles do hit here. They are yellow cowards not worth the bullet it would take to kill them, and whose cowardice would stain the rope used to hang them for their treason. And unless Israel strikes first and strikes hard, the missiles will hit here.

I don't rely on America, a pitiful helpless giant.

And frankly, I don't rely on the IDF, whose honor and fine reputation has been stained beyond repair by cowards like Rabin, Barak, Mitzna, Sharon, Olmert, Netanyahu, Livni and Peres.

That leaves the G-d of Israel. On Him I do rely.

Ruvy, as usual, you are making little sense. for a start it simply isn't possible to have encyclopaedic ignorance. That would be like saying you will follow logic rather than dogma - simply impossible!

Debkafiles is an online newspaper and a partisan one at that. Its reporting is no more valid than anybody else's. The majority of evidence I can find via Google indicates that Hussein's regime stopped making WMDs in 1991 and never had any nukes at all. The majority of its WMDs were given it by the USA for use against Iran.

I didn't say I didn't believe that Iraq never had any WMDs or that they had been sent to Syria. I said that if that were true, Syria had shown restraint by not using them or allowing them to be used by others.

Again, a newspaper report isn't proof, so I doubt that Iran has nukes - yet. Even if they got them, I don't believe they will use them. Britain and France have their own large and established nuclear arsenals - legally obtained, not criminally like Israel's own - and will certainly not tolerate an Iranian nuclear attack.

I never feared a Soviet nuclear attack during the Cold War and I don't fear an Iranian one now. Nor am I willing to live my life in fear and paranoia like some.

History has shown that Iran has always chosen pragmatism over dogma and the literal interpretation of its political statements you are so fond of - at odds with the love of interpretation and divination you apply to your faithist views - is simply naive.

Finally, you appear to believe that your government and army don't care to protect their own people but this unsubstantiated god of yours does and will. Good luck with that.

I was going to reply to this, but I was distracted by Tremendous Reporter Cleavage.