Democrats have often been accused by conservatives of secretly wanting to lose the war in Iraq because it would benefit them politically. Given the difficulty in even defining the meaning of "win" and "lose" in the quagmire that is Iraq, it seems a rather specious charge.
But let's turn the tables a bit. Are Republicans secretly hoping for another terrorist attack on the homeland? It's a deliberately provocative question, and one that deserves some discussion.
Look at where Republicans find themselves in the summer of 2007. They've got a wildly unpopular president at historical lows in the polls, rejected by Americans across the political spectrum. As a direct result of his policies, especially in Iraq, the Republicans have lost control of both houses of Congress. Surveying the current political scene, most observers are predicting a Democratic tsunami in 2008, with the party taking back the White House and increasing their numbers in both the House and the Senate.
Republicans have always considered national security to be their strong suit. Although recent polls show that that perception is changing in favor of the Democrats. They believe that people trust them more than the Democrats to keep Americans safe. So any perceived threat, they reason, benefits Republicans politically. They also believe that the natural reaction in the face of a terrorist attack is to rally 'round the President.
The Bush administration, of course, has always played the terror card when it suited them. Terror alerts and uncovered terror plots seem to conveniently appear whenever Bush has some sort of political crisis that he needs us to avert our eyes from. Their apparent goal is to keep the American people in a perpetual state of fear, and in a state of mind that will compel them to support the President and his party. The unspoken message they want to send is, "Vote Republican or Die." Rudy Giuliani has latched onto this theme and will attempt to ride it all the way to the White House.
But having cried wolf so often, this strategy may be losing its effectiveness. Recent statements by the administration and prominent Republicans suggest that they might actually welcome another terrorist attack as a way to rally the nation and cause people to run back to the Republican party.
Rick Santorum, the recently defeated Senator from Pennsylvania, had this to say during a July 7, 2007 interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio show:
"...between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK."
A few weeks ago, Dennis Milligan, the chairman of the Republican party in Arkansas and a strong Bush supporter, said this:
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”
Both Santorum and Milligan seem to be looking forward to another terror attack as the best way for the "naysayers" to "appreciate" President Bush. Couple that with Michael Chertoff's recent "gut feeling" that an attack may happen this summer, and you have to wonder if they know something that we don't.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Just for the record, the fact that Paul Craig Roberts is a RIGHT wing loony rather than a left wing loony doesn't make him any less of a loony. And quoting him and Alex Jones pretty much makes you a loony too.
Can I sell you a tinfoil hat on the cheap?
Dave
2 - Doug DeLong
That's what I like! Nothing like a good dose of name-calling to get a discussion started!
By the way, I don't believe I quoted Alex Jones anywhere in my article. Does seeing things that aren't there make you a looney? Just asking.
3 - Dave Nalle
Check your first link. It's to Alex Jones' website. I'll give you Jones didn't write the particular article, though. Doesn't make it one bit less idiotic, though.
As for the comment, I kept it relatively light - just trying to encourage further discussion. You do want people to discuss this, right? And given your perspective my comments are probably among the least incensed you're going to see.
If I expressed my full and honest opinion of this kind of drivel my comment would get deleted.
Dave
4 - Doug DeLong
Clearly, "quoting" someone and linking to an article on someone's website written by someone else are quite different. I think we can agree on that.
As for Roberts, his level of paranoia is higher than mine, but his point of view is illustrative of the fact that people across the political spectrum are of the opinion that, given Bush's record, he cannot be trusted or believed on almost any subject.
5 - Lucky
Americans already know that war and religion have been used for ages by the ruling classes.
Last Night, I was looking for a book on one of my bookshelves ... and I stumbled across a book that I got back in 1989 but I never actually read it ... because I was taught that the Jehova's Witnesses were a cult by my Southern Baptist church.
I decided to open up the book titled "The Bible: God's Word or Man's?" What I found amazed me because it completely backed up my theories that religions were corrupt and that the invasion of Iraq was nothing more than an attempt to take control over ancient Babylon and Messopotamia.
The book lays out the history of the bible and tries to convince you that the bible is God's inspired word ... but for me ... knowing what I do now ... it dealt a damaging blow to the believers of Christianity. The book shows a 15th century image of a man being burned to death ... and the image is labeled "As this 15th century wookcut illustrates, many were burned alive for the "crime" of reading the Bible." The image is very revealing .. because it is obvious that the man being burned is the only one who is not a Christian. The others are wearing the fish type hats (like the Pope) and have sceptors with crosses on them. The man being burned looks like a buddhist or something. What a shame that they even said this ... it is clearly a lie. In this book they say that "no such book has been the target of so much vicious opposition and even hatred throughout history. Bibles have been burned on public bonfires, from the Middle Ages down to our 20th century. And reading or distributing the Bible has been punished with fines and imprisonment and even in modern times. In past times such crimes often led to torture and death." These statement are not exactly true. The real punishments were imposed on those that did not believe the bible ... as they were improsoned, tortured and fined. Throughout our history you will see that the Christians were the ones that did these very actions and were the book burners. You need to look no further than the Nazi's in Germany that were backed by Christians. Yes, indeed the Nazi's who killed the Jews were doing this in Christ's name. They were a Christian Organization.
Take a look at the Mayans ... as all their books were burned when the explorers came to their lands and discovered their pagan religions.
The original Christians were the Egyptians and the Christians are trying to cover this up. That is why we are in Iraq.
Jesus Christ is the solar mythological deity that represents Pisces and this Age.
The world is not coming to an end. The Christians, Muslims and Jews just don't understand astronomy or the Zodiac.
Watch for information.
6 - Roger Whidden
There is no need to qualify the answer to the question with "Almost". It is most certainly a certainty that you BELIEVE ".. that there are elements within the Republican party that wouldn't necessarily, shall we say, be disappointed if such an attack were to occur?"
Believing it does not make it true. Hoping harm comes to America for partisan gain is, shall we say, treasonous. Saying some in the opposition party hopes that, shall we say, is purely partisan politics.
7 - Dave Nalle
Clearly, "quoting" someone and linking to an article on someone's website written by someone else are quite different. I think we can agree on that.
Not really. THe site represents the Alex Jones mindset, the conspiratorial disinformation machine which seeks to muddy the waters and distort reality to serve an extremist agenda. Whether Jones or one of his loyalists wrote the piece is largely irrelevant.
As for Roberts, his level of paranoia is higher than mine, but his point of view is illustrative of the fact that people across the political spectrum are of the opinion that, given Bush's record, he cannot be trusted or believed on almost any subject.
But you see, not trusting Bush does not automatically legitimize everything that is anti-Bush or every crackpot theory about the government or conspiracies. Bush can be a weasel and still not be part of some grand conspiracy.
I do admire your restraint and the good shot you made at seeming rational in this piece. The mask barely slipped.
Dave
8 - Doug DeLong
#6 Roger,
"Hoping harm comes to America for partisan gain is, shall we say, treasonous."
Yeah, that was kinda my thought as well, but I didn't want to say it out loud, like you just did.
"Saying some in the opposition party hopes that, shall we say, is purely partisan politics."
Oh, you mean like when Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to lose the war and hating America, etc. Methinks you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
9 - Clavos
Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?.
Or are democrats not that devious and self absorbed?
10 - Dave Nalle
BTW, Doug. Read Lucky's comment carefully. Pin it on your wall. When you start sounding like that - and I'd say it's only months away - it's time to head for the bunker and check make sure the Spam supply is up to date.
dave
11 - Doug DeLong
Dave,
If I end up in the loony bin in a few months, you'll be the first to know. I think, though, that once we are freed of the current psychotic administration, and get some people with a firmer grasp on reality running things, I'll be able to regain my equalibrium.
And Lucky...just curious, did you read my article or do you just randomly post your ramblings anywhere that strikes your fancy?
12 - Orwell's Ghost
Dave, Dave, Dave...
if there is an attack in the US by November then you might just want to hold on to that tin foil hat before you go selling it.
You just might need it.
Yes Alex Jones is a complete chode, but those statements were made on the Hugh Hewitt show by Rick Santorum, regardless the source.
The writer may also want to look into Bushs statements about giving it until November to prove that we are still needed in Iraq.
Something is on the burner.
Whether you think so or not.
13 - Dave Nalle
OMG I forgot to even abuse Doug for quoting Santorum. Santorum is a dyed in the wool freak from another planet. There's a reason he wasn't reelected. He and his family are like the real life Addams Family. The man brought his wife's miscaried fetus home and slept with it in their bed ferchrissakes.
As for a terrorist attack by november, it wouldn't surprise me at all. We're more than due. And who cares? Keeps us on our toes. When I travel around town I see scores of great targets which are virtually undefended. Eventually someone will do something about them.
Dave
14 - Doug DeLong
"As for a terrorist attack by november, it wouldn't surprise me at all. We're more than due. And who cares? Keeps us on our toes."
Jesus, Dave, you sound like Stu Bykofsky. Who cares? Keeps us on our toes? Please tell me your kidding!
At least we can both agree on the fact that Rick Santorum is certifiable...and yet, he was (and still is) a hero to many in the Republican crowd.
15 - Dave Nalle
Jesus, Dave, you sound like Stu Bykofsky. Who cares? Keeps us on our toes? Please tell me your kidding!
Don't know Bykofsky, but I'm not kidding. We have to be prepared to deal with occasional acts of terrorism in the future and take them in stride. They are going to happen. Hopefully we can minimize the impact and move on.
The only way to prevent all terrorism has a price so high that I know that you are no more willing to pay it than I am, so I accept the occasional bit of terrorism as the price of preserving freedom.
At least we can both agree on the fact that Rick Santorum is certifiable...and yet, he was (and still is) a hero to many in the Republican crowd.
Not to any Republicans I know, but then I stay away from tent revivals, polygamist compounds and full immersion baptisms.
Dave
16 - f0ca1
Let's not forget the comments of the head of the Arkansas GOP.
17 - Doug DeLong
Check out my article again for Bykofsky's column. He wrote that "One month from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America..."
His thesis being that a nice, big juicy attack would unite Americans again. He then went on to helpfully give terrorists a list of targets for them to consider.
Personally, I prefer the motto "Never Again" to "Take Them in Stride." I mean, isn't that what the whole "War on Terror" is supposed to be about?
18 - REMF
"BTW, Doug. Read Lucky's comment carefully. Pin it on your wall. When you start sounding like that - and I'd say it's only months away - it's time to head for the bunker and check make sure the Spam supply is up to date."
- Dave Nalle
Would it be safer than a fortified compound?
(MCH)
19 - REMF
"Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?."
- Clavos
No, but there are elements of the democrat party who want our men and women out of that cluster-fuck, since those who are responsible for the invasion are a group of draft dodgers led by a deserter.
(MCH)
20 - Dave Nalle
His thesis being that a nice, big juicy attack would unite Americans again. He then went on to helpfully give terrorists a list of targets for them to consider.
Hey, I've considered writing that article.
Personally, I prefer the motto "Never Again" to "Take Them in Stride." I mean, isn't that what the whole "War on Terror" is supposed to be about?
The War on Terror is supposed to be about stopping terrorism, but there's more than one way to do it, and the only method which leads to 'never again' involves a level of domestic security which I think is unacceptable. I lived in the soviet union when I had to carry a domestic passport and submit to police checks wherever I went. I don't want to experience that in America.
Dave
21 - Clavos
So, Doug:
You gonna answer my #9???
22 - Doug DeLong
"Are there elements of the democrat party that would like to see our armed forces get their asses kicked big time in Iraq so Bush will suffer the ultimate (for him) failure and so they can be right about our involvement?"
It's not a question of wanting to see Bush fail. That's already happened. Don't you read the papers? Now it's just a question of figuring out the best way to get out without making things worse than they already are.
23 - Clavos
I see.
Didja notice the "(for him)" in my question? HE doesn't think he's failed, does he?
So I guess you're NOT going to answer my question in #9, huh?
24 - Baronius
Secret wishes aren't treasonous. You don't demonstrate that Republicans secretly wish for another terrorist attack. Santorum sounds like he's expecting something; Milligan doesn't. Neither of them indicate secret hopes. I haven't read Santorum's statement in context, but it's a long way from suspicion of an attack to hope for one.
But let's say that every Republican is hoping for big deaths. (That seems fair.) They're not doing anything to speed it up. The Democrats are doing and saying things that undermine our war effort. For all I know, Democrats secretly hope we stabilize Iraq, but they're keeping that secret buried deep in their hearts.
Maybe the Republicans should start calling for timetables to withdraw security from airports.
25 - Karen Olgom
Believe it or not. Saying so in this article does not make it automatically true. Neither does saying that it would make Bush and his government treasonous make it necessarily false.
The proof will out. The question is less if it will happen - are you a crazy left wing conspiracy theorist - or if it will not. The question is how to deal with it IF it does happen.
If you believe that Bush's govt are capable of, and plan to do this, then what is the best way for damage control - to prevent his getting his intentions. Not enough people read this blog (I just found it today) to make a difference.
If it happens, and the political mood turns back to the Republicans, it is not good enough to say "I told you so." What do we do?