Quote :

"The commercial, you have already seen, it is a distillation of everything this administration and the party in power have tried to do these last five years and six weeks. It is from the Republican National Committee, it shows images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. It offers quotes from them, all as a clock ticks ominously in the background. It concludes with what Zawahiri may or may not have said to a Pakistani journalist as long ago as 2001, his dubious claim that he had purchased suitcase bombs. The quotation is followed by sheer coincidence, no doubt, by an image of a massive explosion. "These are the stakes" appears on the screen, quoting exactly from Lyndon Johnson's infamous nuclear scare commercial from 1964, "Vote November 7th". There is a cheap Texas Chainsaw Massacre quality to the whole thing. It also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn't think about, except, obviously, when elections were near. Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time have laughed out loud, but not everyone. And therein lies the true threat to this country. The dictionary definition of the word ‘terrorize' is simple and not open to misinterpretation: "To fill or overpower with terror; terrify; coerce by intimidation or fear." Note please that the words ‘violence' and ‘death' are missing from that definition. For the key to terrorism is not the act-but the fear of the act. That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotape statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings. But why is the Republican Party imitating them? Bin Laden puts out what amounts to a commercial of fear; the Republicans put out what is unmistakable as a commercial of fear. The Republicans are paying to have the messages of bin Laden and the others broadcast into your home! Only the Republicans have a bigger bankroll. When last week, the CNN network ran video of an insurgent in Iraq evidently stalking and killing an American soldier, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Mr. Hunter, Republican of California, branded that channel quote "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film," and added that CNN used it to sell commercials. Another California Republican, Representative Brian Bilbray, called the video quote "nothing short of a terrorist snuff film." If so, Mr. Bilbray, then what in the hell is your party's new advertisement? And Mr. Hunter? CNN using the film to sell commercials? Commercials? You have adopted bin Laden and Zawahiri as spokesmen for the Republican National Committee. ‘To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear' By this definition, the people who put these videos together: first, the terrorists and then, the administration, whose shared goal is to scare you into panicking instead of thinking, they are the ones terrorizing you. By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaeda, but the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party. Eleven presidents ago, the chief executive reassured us that ‘we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.' His distant successor has wasted his administration, insisting there is nothing we can have but fear itself. The Vice President, as recently as this month, was caught campaigning again with the phrase "mass death in the United States". Four years ago, it was the now Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, rationalizing Iraq with quote, "we don't want to be…the smoking gun to be the mushroom cloud." Days later, Mr. Bush himself told an audience that quote "we cannot wait the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." And now we have this cheesy commercial, complete with images of a faked mushroom cloud and implications of mass death in America. This administration has derived benefit and power from terrorizing the very people it claims to be protecting from terror. It may be the oldest trick in the political book: scare people into believing they are in danger and only you can save them. Lyndon Johnson used it to bury Barry Goldwater. Joe McCarthy leaped from obscurity on its back. And now the legacy has come to President George W. Bush. Of course, the gruel of fear is getting thinner and thinner, is it not, Mr. President? And thus, more and more of it needs to be made out of less and less actual terror. After last week's embarrassing internet hoax about dirty bombs in footballs stadiums, the one your Department of Homeland Security immediately disseminated to the public, a self-described former CIA operative named Wayne Simmons cited the fiasco as quote "The, and I mean, the perfect example of the President's Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the NSA Terrorist Eavesdropping Program-how vital they are." Frank Gaffney, once a respected Assistant Secretary of Defense and now the president of something called The Center for Security Policy added "one of the things that I hope Americans take away from this is not only that they're gunning for us. Not just in a place like Iraq, but truly worldwide." Of course, the "they" to which Mr. Gaffney referred, turned out to be a lone 20-year-old grocery bagger from Wisconsin named Jake. A kid trying to one-up some loser in an internet game of ‘chicken.' His threat referenced seven football stadiums, at which dirty bombs were to be exploded yesterday. It began with the one in New York City, even though there isn't one in New York City and though the attacks were supposed to be simultaneous, four of the games were scheduled to start at 1:00 pm Eastern time and the others at 4:00 pm Eastern time. Moreover, the kid said that he had posted the identical message on forty websites since September. We caught him in merely about six weeks, even though the only way he could be less subtle, less stealthy and less of a threat was if he bought an advertisement on the Superbowl telecast. Mr. Bush, this is the what–100th plot your people have revealed that turned out to be some nonsensical misunderstanding or the fabrications of somebody hoping to talk his way off a waterboard in Eastern Europe? If, Mr. President, this is the kind of crack work your new ad implies that only you, and not the Democrats, can do, you, sir, need to pull over and ask for directions. The real question, of course, Mr. Bush, is why did your Department of Homeland Security even release that information in the first place? It was never a serious threat. Even the first news accounts quoted a Homeland spokesman as admitting strong skepticism. The kind of strong skepticism which most government agencies address before telling the public, not afterwards. So that leaves two options, Mr. President: the first option, you and your Department of Homeland Security don't have the slightest idea what you're doing here. Thus, contrary to your flip-flopping between saying, "we're safe" and saying, "but we're not safe enough", and contrary to the Vice President's swaggering pronouncements about the lack of another attack since 9/11, the last five years HAS been just an accident. Or there's the second option: your political operatives leaked this nonsense for the same reason your political operatives put out that commercial. To scare the gullible. Obviously, the correct answer, Mr. Bush, is: all of the above. There are some of us who could forgive you, for trying to run your candidates on the coattails of the Grim Reaper, for reducing your party's existence to "Death and the Tax Us." It's cynical and barbaric, but after all, it may be merely the extension of the gutter politics to which you have subscribed since you sidled over from baseball and the business world of other people's money. But to forgive you for terrorizing us, we would have to believe that you somehow competent in keeping others from terrorizing us. Yet last week, construction workers repairing a subway line in New York City were cleaning out an abandoned manhole on the edge of the WTC site, when they stumbled on the horrific and impossible: human remains from 9/11. Bones and fragments, eighty of them. Some as much as a foot long. The victims had been lying literally in the gutter for five years and five weeks. The families and friends of each of the 2,749 dead, who had been grimly told in May 2002, that there were no more remains to be found, were struck anew as if the terrorism of that day had just happened all over again. And over this weekend, they have found still more remains. And now this week will be spent looking in places that should have already been looked at a thousand times, five years ago. For all the victims in New York, Mr. Bush, the living and the dead, it is a touch of 9/11 all over again. And the mayor of this city, who called off this search four and a half years ago is a Republican. The governor, with whom he conferred, is a Republican. The House of Representatives, Republican. The Senate, Republican. The President, Republican. And yet you can claim that you and you alone can protect us from terrorism? "

video and more here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/23/olbermanns-special-comment-on-gop-fearmongering

10/24/2006 2:54:19 AM

TERRORISM!!!

10/24/2006 3:53:32 AM

And clearly "terrorize" = "terrorist"

Please stop posting.

10/24/2006 6:34:56 AM

I'm not reading all that, but in general, I agree.

10/24/2006 8:21:43 AM

By this reasoning all politicians are terrorists.

"Vote for us or the Republicans will imprison half of you without charges and leave the other-half homeless without social security!"

10/24/2006 9:13:37 AM

Quote :

"And clearly "terrorize" = "terrorist" Please stop posting. "

PWNT of the Week Nominee

10/24/2006 9:16:38 AM

depends on your definition of "terrorist".

e.g. Princeton says terrorist="a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities "
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorist
.... sounds about right

10/24/2006 9:33:31 AM

^ "Radical"? Princeton certainly would know leftist radicals.

10/24/2006 9:54:12 AM

ok, so if we're down to quibbling about the differences between "terrorize" and "terrorist", you all are admitting that while the administration are not terrorists, per se, they are in fact terrorizing the populous?

10/24/2006 10:25:54 AM

And this is new information?

10/24/2006 10:36:57 AM

wow

10/24/2006 11:09:20 AM

Quote :

"The dictionary definition of the word ‘terrorize' is simple and not open to misinterpretation: "To fill or overpower with terror; terrify; coerce by intimidation or fear." Note please that the words ‘violence' and ‘death' are missing from that definition. For the key to terrorism is not the act-but the fear of the act."

Based upon the definition of terrorism given, pretty much every president has played the fear and terror card at one point or another to strengthen their political power, whether it be fear of communists, minorities, heathens, big business, etc.

Republicans say that if you don't keep them in office, the terrorists are going to come and kill us all. Democrats are going to steal all that you've earned, make our children gay, impose their heathen beliefs on you, sell you out to left wing extremists, and destroy our great Republic.

Democrats say that if you don't put them into office, we are going to create more terrorists who will come and kill us all. Republicans are going to steal your liberties, molest our children, impose their backwards religious beliefs on you, sell you out to right wing extremists, and destroy our great Republic.

I don't see much difference.

10/24/2006 11:27:01 AM

For one, it hinges on what exactly is "terror", and thats different for everyone.

But you have to admit, death terror, or being afraid of dieing kinda trumps all the other things you pointed out.

10/24/2006 11:31:26 AM

Has anyone watched the video clip that I linked to?

Quote :

"terrorist /'tererist/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-er-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/23/olbermanns-special-comment-on-gop-fearmongering



[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 11:57 AM. Reason : video]

10/24/2006 11:55:46 AM

probably not, because you're an idiot

10/24/2006 12:00:44 PM

\message_topic.aspx?topic=434512

10/24/2006 12:12:27 PM

^^ Your posts should be dismissed sooner than a pryderi post. He posted a nice link.

10/24/2006 12:20:52 PM

But pryderi, you're always telling us how the Republicans are monsters who are out to destroy the country...don't you think that prospect is a little scary? And if it is, wouldn't that make you a terrorist?

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 12:40 PM. Reason : You do with the GOP exactly what the GOP does with al Qaeda]

10/24/2006 12:40:31 PM

yeah the fear mongering by the republicans of "omg elect us there are terrorists" is overshadowed by the democrats themselves saying "omg republicans are evil...you shouldnt be scared by their scare tactics about terrorism...but you should be scared of them omfg!!1"

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 12:41:29 PM

I think the simple truth of it all is that the Democrats have at best a complicated plan and at worst no plan at all. The Republicans on the other hand have a simple plan that at best has some major flaws and at worst flate out doesn't work. The difference is that the Republicans are the ones in power, and they have habitually used fear to STAY in power.

If the Dems were doing the same while in power, I'd have voted them out too. This is how politics works; if those in power suck then replace 'em. Will the Democrats be any better? Dunno, but I'd like to find out. If they're worse than the current crew then they'll truly have accomplished something...

10/24/2006 12:57:13 PM

Quote :

"the Democrats have at best a complicated plan and at worst no plan at all. The Republicans on the other hand have a simple plan that at best has some major flaws and at worst flate out doesn't work."

agreed...at least with the Republicans you have an idea of what you're getting...even if you disagree with every single thing Bush does or has done, you at least know what his views are

10/24/2006 12:59:53 PM

Quote :

"at least with the Republicans you have an idea of what you're getting."

Really? And what would that be?

10/24/2006 3:03:35 PM

^ it sure as hell has changed the last 8 years

10/24/2006 3:05:01 PM

This thread is full of stupidity. I think pryderi and hooksaw are running neck-and-neck for "dumbest post of the day" right now.

And this is coming from someone who's not voting GOP.

10/24/2006 3:33:47 PM

You must be doing what I am doing, not reading Twista posts, if you are making that statement.

10/24/2006 3:36:03 PM

Bruce Campbell is a terrorist

10/24/2006 4:21:08 PM

^^yep

him and josh#### are blank space to me

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 4:22:52 PM

thats the most intelligent course of action

if you disagree with someone, just completely ignore them

thats the best way to get the whole story from all sides

10/24/2006 4:58:39 PM

and what insightful commentary do you, as an individual regardless of political affiliation, ever provide?

just as much as josh#### provides.

10/24/2006 5:04:04 PM

thats false but how would you know what insight i offer if you dont read my posts

thats about as biased as you can get though...if i dont agree with someone i at least read what they have to say

i dont ignore them and act like they dont exist which is the biggest copout imaginable

10/24/2006 5:05:31 PM

Terrorism involves violence. The author of that article can fuck around with definitions to play politics (which the Republicans are doing as well in thier ad), but that does not mean that the Republicans are committing acts of terrorism.

[/thread]

10/25/2006 9:44:34 AM

Republicans get you to vote for them by making you poop your pants in fear.

10/25/2006 10:12:42 AM