Written Sept. 30 - Oct. 2006
You hear it all the time. The Republicans accuse the Democrats of “playing politics” with the war in Iraq, Homeland Security, Hurricane Katrina, and on and on. In response, the Democrats charge the Republicans of doing the same thing with 9/11 and “The War on Terror.” But what the hell does that mean—playing politics? Last I checked, that’s what a politician does—plays the ugly game of politics. Wouldn’t it sound bizarre if, say, during the World Series, one team’s manager got all bent out of shape and accused the other team of playing baseball? (Gasp!)
Bush said some of his critics "selectively quoted" from recently leaked portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate on the war against terrorism to suggest that extremists were using the Iraq war to recruit more terrorists.
The president declassified key judgments from the NIE after leaks appeared in The New York Times. Bush said it was noteworthy that the leaks appeared in the run-up to the Nov. 7 (2006) midterm elections. –USA Today, 9/29/06
Noteworthy, I love that. Those damn Democrats and their Liberal Media are playing politics again! So, in so many words, Bush has charged his critics’ quoting of the NIE as a ploy to make his administration look bad before the upcoming congressional elections—a dirty political trick, in his mind.
Well, what do you call it when Bush suddenly starts quoting Osama bin Laden and comparing him to Adolf Hitler? Just three and a half weeks prior to the NIE leak, Bush quoted bin Laden at length, including, “The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq ... The whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”
“History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men
is a terrible mistake,” the president said.
“Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? –San Mateo Daily Journal, 9/06/06
The logic here, of course, is that Bush’s critics and everyone else will be reminded of bin Laden’s existence, hopefully link him to Hitler—arguably The Most Evil Man Ever—and then vote Republican out of fear. But the comparison doesn’t make any sense. Bin Laden’s no angel, and I certainly have no qualms categorizing him as “evil,”1 but Hitler murdered six million. Bin Laden’s entire al-Qaeda network is responsible for how many deaths world
wide—4,015? And how much blood is on Bush’s hands?
Well, the president was addressing the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia on Dec. 12, 2005, when a woman asked him how many Iraqis had died as a result of his war. Bush thought for a moment and very nonchalantly replied, “I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq” (CNN.com, 12/12/05).
As you can imagine, Bush underestimated and it still sounded like a lot of dead people. 
IraqBodyCount.org, on the other hand, estimates that at least 43,546 Iraqis and as many as 48,343 have been killed by U.S. military action there—and those are just the civilian casualties! And don’t forget about Afghanistan… or, for that matter, innocent Palestinians and Lebanese crushed by American bombs via Israel.
Hitler comparisons are irresponsible and dim-witted; they downplay the epic tragedy of the Holocaust, and should never be made by anyone. It should at least be clear which man is responsible for more civilian deaths. It’s a clear-cut case of the pot calling the kettle black. Total hypocrisy. Don’t forget that as governor of Texas, Bush executed more people than any governor in U.S. history. The mentally retarded as well.
“If President Bush had unleashed the American military to do the job at Tora Bora four years ago and killed Osama bin Laden, he wouldn’t have to quote this barbarian’s words today,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. “Because President Bush lost focus on the killers who attacked us and
instead launched a disastrous war in Iraq, today Osama bin Laden and his henchmen still find sanctuary in the no-man’s-land between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they still plot attacks against America.” –San Mateo Daily Journal, 9/06/06
It’s all the same thing: Democrats want Americans to consider the fact that we’re not immune to attack despite the Iraq war, which the Bush administration claims to be a proactive measure in fighting terrorism and keeping America safe; Bush, on the other hand, wants to remind us that bin Laden is still lurking out there, hell-bent on our demise—(not because of our imperialistic foreign policy based primarily on slaughtering from the sky and stealing precious resources, but, as the rhetoric goes, because bin Laden and his misfit friends hate our American way of life, namely our pesky freedom.
What I’d say is more noteworthy is that, until recently, the Bush administration hadn’t made an overt issue of bin Laden in years, with the exception of vague isolated warnings when it was politically convenient. 
And then there was the Oct. 6, 2005 warning of possible attacks in New York City’s subways, which followed a speech Bush gave about the looming threat of terrorism on American soil and happened to overshadow the announcement that Karl Rove would have to testify again in front of a grand jury because of the Valerie Plame leak.
The day after the subway warning, columnist Craig Crawford addressed the issue.
“I worry about the news media being forced to take these dire warnings at face 
value despite the pattern of politicians provoking these episodes at suspiciously opportune moments.” Crawford cited that summer’s East Coast terror warnings that were “based on outdated intelligence” and happened to coincide with the Democratic National Convention in Boston. –C.C., Congressional Quarterly columnist, Oct. 7, 2005
“The news media should be aggressive and skeptical from the outset about the possibility of manipulation in these moments, so that public officials are not tempted to play games with terror threats as yet another news management tool. Instead, we have an environment that spooks reporters and their bosses off this trail … because they know the politicians will attack them for being callous, or worse, treasonous. Letting politicians bully us from doing our jobs does not serve the public. It only serves the 
politicians” (CBS: Oct. 7, 2005).
You may recall when Bush stood on top of the smoking pile of debris—which, six days earlier, had been the Twin Towers—spitting his Texas Bounty Hunter rhetoric through that bullhorn. Osama bin Laden was officially America’s most wanted man and Bush promised to hunt him down.
“I want justice,” (Bush) said after a meeting at the Pentagon, where 188 people were killed last Tuesday when an airliner crashed into the building. “And there's an old poster out West that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” …
The blunt, Texas-style rhetoric, delivered off the cuff, came a day after Vice-President Dick Cheney said he would willingly accept bin Laden's “head on a platter.” –Telegraph (UK), 9/18/01
Two days after 9/11, in Washington D.C., Bush said, “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
Makes sense, right? But exactly six months after making the statement above, on March 13, 2002, Bush said, “I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.”
Not our priority? The president’s relaxed remark reflected his true sentiments at the time. We were one year away from going to war in Iraq and the planning phase had begun. No matter how irrational it was, Saddam Hussein was the new priority and that’s how it remained for fo
ur and-a-half years. Why?
“The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.” —Pres. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
What?
In February 2004, noticing that bin Laden had long been absent from news headlines and White House statements, I wrote about it for an opinion writing class I was taking. It’s dated Feb. 11, 2004, and begins like this:
Whatever happened to that one guy? What was his name? Oh yeaaaaah, Osama bin Something. Weren’t we trying to find that guy at one point?
In 2001, following the Sept. 11 tragedy, President Bush firmly announced that the Uni
ted States would hunt down bin Laden like a dog…
And then they rested. And rested some more. Two and-a-half years later, the Bush Administration has long been in hibernation on the issue of capturing America’s most wanted man.
But who cares? The Iraqis are free and now have cell-phones, hooray!
But now with the midterm elections right around the corner, it’s again becoming convenient to cite America’s so-called Most Wanted Man. If bin Laden can be used to get Bush carte blanche in settling irrelevant old vendettas in a place the al-Qaeda ringleader never lived, then why not use him just one last time—like pulling a scary mask out of the closet to reuse every Halloween—to maintain the status quo in Washington?
You may have noticed that Bush had a couple visitors in town this weekend—the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Pervez Musharraf and Hamid Karzai, respectively. It just so happens that bin Laden lives somewh
ere along the border of these two countries, which, hilariously, are America’s allies in the War on Terror. So was the timing of their visit a coincidence? I highly doubt it.
News reports claim the meeting was spurred by recent squabbling between the two foreign leaders, but I have a feeling that their invitations were less about peacemaking and more about making an excuse to start talking about bin Laden again. Although Musharraf and Karzai both deny it, bin Laden lives on the outskirts of one of their countries and probably spends a little time in both, so Bush had an excuse ready to go at the drop of a hat should a journalist be bold enough—not likely—to accuse him of playing politics with bin Laden because, well, what else are they supposed to talk about—Clinton Portis and the Redskins?
What’s really stupid about this battle for political positioning is that Democrats and Republicans are arguing the same thing—America’s not safe—but from different angles. The Left blames the Right, saying their incompetence is the reason for our insecurity. The Right hypocritically accuses the Left of playing politics to achieve their own ends (because they’re so utterly powerless and jealous), while doing the same thing themselves by bringing bin Laden back into the fray to scare everyone.
“Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding,” Bush said. “Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, we will find you, and we’re going to bring you to justice.” -M&C News (UK), 9/29/06
(Be afraid. We’re coming after you. Still. Again. Whatever..)
In early September, the White House published a 23-page booklet called “National Strategy for Combating Terrorism,” which concluded: “Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America is safer, but we are not yet safe.”
The president and his Republican allies want to convince Americans ahead of the November 7 midterm elections that they are best able to fight terrorism and that the Iraq war is part of that fight. –Reuters, 9/30/06
Republicans love citing the fact that there hasn’t been an attack on American soil in five years as evidence that their “fight ‘em over there” strategy is working to make us safer (even though this reasoning completely ignores the fact that eight years passed—sans War on Terror—between the first failed attack on the World Trade Center and the second, more elaborate and ultimately successful attempt). Just don’t confuse being safer with actually being safe; if we were safe, then we wouldn’t need the Republicans and their aggressive pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey military strategy, which they claim is the reason we’re safer.
So of course Bush got so pissy about the leaked portions of the NIE, which stated th
at the Iraq war is “shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders … breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”
During his weekly radio address on Sept. 30, Bush fired back, saying, “Some in Washington have selectively quoted from this document (NIE) to make the case that by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we are making our people less secure here at home. This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we are provoking them.”
The enemy’s propaganda? You’ve got to be kidding me. It’s a matter of common sense that our belligerently brazen conduct is hurting our reputation throughout the world--not propaganda. In other words, Bush would have you believe that Americans who feel the Iraq war was and continues to be a mistake, think that way because they have a satellite dish and sit around eating hummus and watching Al-Jazeera all day. In reality, Americans cheer for contestants on American Idol, not masked terrorists who lop Western hostages’ heads off.
The only propaganda2 Americans see comes in the form of American TV news, whether it is FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC. All these stations are owned by conglomerates (General Electric, AOL Time-Warner, Disney, 
Viacom, AT&T, etc.) that also own our military’s weapons manufacturers. Obviously these parent companies have a vested interest in making lots of weapons/military machinery, as well as war/government-friendly “news.” It’s a logical method of operation that you may have heard of; it’s called: Don’t Shit Where You Eat.
In his Tuesday news conference, Bush noted that the story about the National Intelligence Estimate landed “on the front page of your newspapers” as the country was “coming down the stretch in an election campaign.” He added: “Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.” Whoever leaked the story about the report may indeed have been motivated by politics and a desire to undermine the administration before the midterm elections. It is equally possible that one or more persons inside the intelligence agencies or elsewhere in the government decided to go public because they were dismayed by the administration's mantra that the U.S. is safer because of the war in Iraq, knowing that the evidence did not support that view. But regardless of the motives behind the leaking of the document's contents, what's clear is that the president ordered up a declassified release to score political points. This is the same president who has consistently denounced leaks and whose administration has even threatened to prosecute journalists who reported the leaks...
(Lyndon) Johnson and other presidents have freely quoted classified documents in their memoirs, selling secrets to the public between hard covers. That might suggest that secrets are a commodity, rather like pork bellies, to be sold or traded for political advantage but cloaked in an aura of "national security" when an administration finds it useful to protect them. –LAT
imes, 10/1/06
So, just to keep this straight: In the fall of 2001, we were dead serious about hunting down bin Laden and bringing him to justice. Then, by the spring of 2002, bin Laden wasn’t even a priority. Between then and now, we were scantly reminded of him when it was convenient for the Bush administration to draw attention away from less flattering news. And now, in the fall of 2006, we’re back on the hunt for bin Laden (“Cheney, get your gun!”)? For all the tough talk, Bush’s War on Terror is more like the children’s game Red Light/Green Light than a segregation-era Texas manhunt.
Bin Laden the bully is back, y’all… Head for the hills!
It is utterly retarded for any politician to accuse the other side of playing politics with any issue; it’s just a form of damage control, plain and simple, and both sides play the game. If someone criticizes the Bush administration on the Iraq war, the administration responds by cleverly changing the subject.
(So-And-So is not concerned about the war as he claims; he just wants to make us look bad. He’s a Dirty Rotten Liberal who doesn’t understand that war is serious business, and instead is more interested in partisan jabs than Poor Timmy who was killed while courageously defending our freedom and liberating the oppressed. Our soldiers are in harm’s way and all you’re concerned about is politics? Shame on you, Liberal Scum.)
Similarly, when portions of the NIE surfaced and its conclusion was that the Iraq war has created more terrorists than it has eliminated, the focus was shifted to the motivation for the leak rather than the information itself. Why would someone leak this? For political gain, of course… How dare they! All of a sudden, the news isn’t about the bullshit war that the NIE concluded is doing more harm than good, but rather the intent of leaker.
This tirade of mine was inspired, about a week ago, by the resurgence of bin Laden in the media. It wasn’t a news story that said Democrats were questioning the timing of bin Laden’s return to the headlines that gave me the idea; it was an individual observation on my part. However, it is well documented that Democrats have been critical about Hurricane Katrina and Iraq—two topics which are safe to criticize since it’s abundantly clear that both are Undeniable Royal Fuck Ups. Calling Bush out on bin Laden would take major balls, which are two things that Democrats simply do not have.
To further illustrate my point, two developments occurred within the last week that caused Republicans to leap out of their seats and claim that Democrats are playing politics again
. First, Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) was caught trying to seduce high school boys who served as congressional pages with raunchy emails and instant messages. Nobody’s doubting the allegations; Foley has already disgracefully resigned and his sexually-charged instant messages are available for all to view. He’s busted; he’s guilty. But somehow, that’s not the point. The Republicans, now in serious danger of losing their monopoly in Congress, are crying foul because of—guess what—the timing of this scandalous revelation. “The Democrats could care less about the children abused by Foley; they just want to use it as leverage to win the elections!”
The other thing that happened is the release of Bob Woodward’s new book “State of Denial,” which is reported as being very critical of the execution of the postwar in Iraq and reveals never-before-heard details about what was happening behind the scenes at the White House. Despite the monstrous credibility of Woodward—who, of course, was one half of the journalistic duo that exposed Richard Nixon as the mastermind behind Watergate—Republicans have circled their wagons to question the timing of the book’s release.
Whether it’s a pedophile Republican Congressman or a document that’s critical of this administration’s policies, the content is taken into consideration for a moment, but then the media becomes manipulated into shifting the focus to claims of Democrats playing politics. It seems to be of no matter that a Republican Congressman is a sexual predator or that the war is bullshit—what’s important is the timing, when these things came to light.
And although both sides take part in the mud slinging, somehow the “Liberal Media” covers more of the allegations from the Right…
***
It is often said that the Republicans’ greatest strength is national security and the War on Terror. Supposedly, they do a better job protecting us than Democrats would. But that’s really just speculation because the Democrats haven’t had a chance to try yet. It is assumed by those on the Right that a Democratic White House would be soft on terrorism just because they’re now mostly opposed to the war in Iraq. But Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror until we went over there, fucked it up, and made it an unstable hotbed of violence to which terrorists now swarm from all over the region.
The invasion of Iraq was the wrong answer to the terrorist challenge, for which we will pay a high price for years to come. The continued need to defend that move by the administration and its partisans is preventing the nation from crafting the necessary strategy to meet the terrorist challenge and make Americans safer. The evidence is at hand. –Washington Post, 9/30/06
The thing that I find most ironic about the War on Terror is how much Bush administration rhetoric could be applied to us, the great liberators, the United States of America. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush said:
“Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.”
Those sick bastards who use torture methods are evil! But wait… we use torture. There are pictures to prove it: Hooded, naked detainees at Abu Ghraib standing on boxes for hours on end with electrodes attached to their testicles, and clearly documented cases of waterboarding, for example. Oh, but I forgot, it’s not the mere use of torture that makes you evil… If you torture under the pleasant-sounding banner of freedom and democracy, then it’s righteous. I’m sure that’s mentioned in the footnotes of Bush’s speech.
Recently, the nomenclature changed slightly when Bush began calling what he previously termed “Islamic fundamentalists,” “Islamic extremists” and “Islamic radicals” Islamofascists; he throws in Hitler comparisons for good measure. This, to me, is absolutely ridiculous. If they’re fascists, what the hell are we?
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. He found 14 defining characteristics common to each: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
It’s very easy to throw around sexy words like evil, fascism, propaganda and torture while referencing Hitler. But as I said earlier, it’s all a matter of perspective. I was waiting to catch a plane at Gerald Ford International Airport here in Grand Rapids when I first heard about the “axis of evil” that Bush declared in his 2002 State of the Union Address. At the time, I could hardly believe he used such strong language.
My problem with overtly religious people using the word evil are the underlying religious connotations—just add a “d” and you’ve got devil. As long as we give our imperialistic misadventures rosy names (Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, etc.) we’re the good guys, the righteous ones with God on our side.
But one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; one man’s devil is another man’s saint. It all depends on which part of the globe you live and who’s killing your neighbors. On Sept. 20, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez addressed the U.N. General Assembly in New York and referred to Bush as “el Diablo” (the devil), which seemed to even piss off liberal Americans who don’t like Bush. Apparently, it wasn’t so much what Chavez said, but where he said it that had people so offended.
Ignorant assholes assert that bin Laden is worse than Bush because he targets innocent Western civilians, whereas the U.S. military uses sophisticated weapons and so-called smart bombs to try to limit civilian casualties, or what we like to call “collateral damage.” But good intentions make no difference when children are being blown to bits and innocent people decimated. Are they not terrified of being forced, at any moment, to wear a bomb for a hat?
Besides, it’s a matter of opinion whether you believe that our government/military really gives a shit about dead Muslims of any age. If you ask me, I think they just want our weapons to be smart enough to be able to say, “We make an effort to avoid killing civilians; we care.” And then we go on dropping cluster bombs on the swarthy non-Christian populations of the Middle East as the death toll rises.
The Bush administration has squandered the sympathy that people worldwide felt for us in the days after 9/11, and has instead made hypocrites and murdering Christian Crusaders of us all. It makes no difference who’s in charge; what’s done is done. And the check is definitely in the mail. Of that you can be sure.
It makes no difference where you stand politically. But it seems to me that if you have a brain floating around inside your skull, and the ability to think for yourself, you should be able to spot all this malarkey for what it is.
The game of politics is just like the game of baseball, except the players are villains instead of heroes.
