May 22, 2002

12:12 PM

ANTI-BUSH BACKLASH BUILDSWhores, For Once, Outraged At Dubya's Bullying, Scare Tactics Bush Likened to Wizard of Oz Even Paula Zahn Objects! Do you agree the latest warnings have as much to do with diversion as legitimate warnings?
posted by onegoodmove (38 comments total)

yes.
posted by saralovering at 12:32 PM on May 22, 2002

No. They are probably analogous to tv weathermen hyping weather on the bad side: no one cares if they're wrong; they look good (or at least not bad) if they're right.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:34 PM on May 22, 2002

Wagging the elephant.
posted by nofundy at 12:35 PM on May 22, 2002

Yes. And I intend to stand by that position until an apartment building or two get bombed. At which point I, and everyone else, will ask why we didn't do more.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:40 PM on May 22, 2002

The first thing I thought to myself when I saw the warnings about places in new york was:

"They insist all of these warnings are unsubstantiated, nonspecific, etc etc.. so why are they bothering to freak people out over nothing? Nothing has happened each time, etc.. There must be some reason."

After about 2 seconds of reflection, I decided that the reason is likely not to "divert attention", but rather to create a mood. If the public is living in concern/fear, then they'll be much less likely to protest en-masse if we use force on some other country, or do something else that would be deemed objectionable.

Being scared for our lives gives us an excuse to do something like (for example, this isn't an actual event I'm convinced will happen) nuking Iraq... More of the American public will rationalize and justify it if we're all afraid. Surely there's other possibilities too, be it taking away some of our civil liberties or privacy, or whatever else they may have planned. But I believe the warnings are very much political posturing...
posted by twiggy at 12:44 PM on May 22, 2002

No, not in the least. It's a reaction to the current, unjustified witch-hunt going on, seeking to claim that the Executive branch had anything more than unsubstantiated, long-shot threats prior to 9-11.

If the Democrites wish to rant and attempt to assign unwaranted blame for 9-11, why shouldn't the Bush White House then warn over every miniscule threat? Thank the Democrites for the current information overload.
posted by dissent at 12:48 PM on May 22, 2002

sure, it's just hyperdefensive political spin of the highest order.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 12:55 PM on May 22, 2002

Good call, nofundy. I actually watched Wag the Dog again last night. Damn, what a great film. I figure the answer lies somewhere inbetween Paris' comment and twiggy's. Fun to think about though...
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:57 PM on May 22, 2002

A population frightened of an external threat is easier to control than a population frightened of an internal threat (like, oh let's say: politicians chomping at the bit to restrict personal liberty)
posted by tankboy at 1:01 PM on May 22, 2002

A population frightened of an external threat might just be frightened for completely legitimate reasons. Like, oh, for instance, the fact that that external enemy wants to kill civilians within the borders of that population's country.

Sheesh, the amount of fiddling while Rome burns around here never ceases to amaze me...

Oh.. simple way to assure personal liberty for long-time US citizens... expel all Muslims and arabs that are not fully naturalized, allow no more in, and keep a hawk's eye even on the naturalized ones.

Obvious, simple, logical. But typical liberal moaning will ensue from this suggestion. And it's the only one that both protects and assures liberty for long-time US citizens.
posted by dissent at 1:10 PM on May 22, 2002

Thank the Democrites for the current information overload.

Ouch! "Democrites!" That stings. Please God, don't let him say it twice . . . I don't think I can bear the agony.

If the Democrites wish to rant and attempt to assign unwaranted blame for 9-11

AAAAAHHHH! He said it again! Wit overload!
posted by Skot at 1:14 PM on May 22, 2002

Hilarious, dissent. What part of the Constitution assures personal liberty for "long-time US citizens" but lets the government "keep a hawk's eye" on "naturalized" Muslims?
posted by rcade at 1:17 PM on May 22, 2002

and will there be a clause for long time US citizens who also happen to be muslims?
posted by zoopraxiscope at 1:22 PM on May 22, 2002

Oh.. simple way to assure personal liberty for long-time US citizens... expel all Muslims and arabs that are not fully naturalized, allow no more in, and keep a hawk's eye even on the naturalized ones.

I feel like I need a shower after reading shit like that.
posted by fellorwaspushed at 1:24 PM on May 22, 2002

tankboy: "...politicians chomping at the bit to restrict personal liberty."

Yes, Ashcroft, Rice, Cheney, Bush, all just sitting around, practically foaming at the mouth: "I hate personal liberty! Hate it, hate it, hate it! We have to find a way to restrict it! I know, make up some crazy story that terrorists might be out to get us!"
posted by pardonyou? at 1:36 PM on May 22, 2002

By the way, this "wag the dog" argument was spurious when leveled against Clinton, and is just as spurious now.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:37 PM on May 22, 2002

Oh.. simple way to assure personal liberty for long-time US citizens... expel all Muslims and arabs that are not fully naturalized
Dissent, this common sense suggestion will eventually be taken. But only about three or four terrorist incidents down the line. Only after the streets are littered with more dead -- including our citizen muslims.
posted by Faze at 1:38 PM on May 22, 2002

Yes, Ashcroft, Rice, Cheney, Bush, all just sitting around

I'm sure they're not sitting around and saying the exact opposite either. But such strong warnings following on the heels of questions about how preliminary reports were dealt with is pretty suspect at best. Coincidence until proven otherwise, but still suspect.
posted by holycola at 1:41 PM on May 22, 2002

Do you agree the latest warnings have as much to do with diversion as legitimate warnings?

I do agree, as the AP reported yesterday that "a top White House aide said last week's criticism prompted a two-pronged political response: Bush accused Democrats of playing politics with the issue as his advisers reminded voters that America is still a target."
posted by tranquileye at 1:48 PM on May 22, 2002

Oh.. simple way to assure personal liberty for long-time US citizens... expel all Muslims and arabs that are not fully naturalized, allow no more in, and keep a hawk's eye even on the naturalized ones.

Why discriminate? Let's just expel all US immigrants and descendants of immigrants and give Manhattan back to the Native Americans.

After all, we all came from somewhere else somewhere along the line.
posted by dogmatic at 1:48 PM on May 22, 2002

So first the administration SHOULD have disclosed information. And now that they're doing it, that's wrong too? It ain't easy bein' prez!
posted by dagny at 1:51 PM on May 22, 2002

i wouldn't need them to disclose any of the reports. just do something to prevent it from happening.
posted by tolkhan at 1:53 PM on May 22, 2002

What about the fact that Senator Bob Graham of Florida -- a Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- has confirmed these threats and their seriousness? This is, of course, the same Bob Graham that is highly critical of the intelligence community and the administration's pre-9/11 conduct. If this is "wag the dog," why the hell would he be backing up the story?

on preview, as dagny suggests, this is a classic Catch-22.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:58 PM on May 22, 2002

To my mind, the problem is not that the administration (may have) failed to prevent the attacks in September. Rather, it's that they denied having had any information of the sort that it's now becoming clear that they did have. If you screwed up, and didn't interpret your intelligence correctly, that's one thing. I think people would be relatively forgiving about that.

But when it turns out (for example) that Ashcroft had info within a week of the event that he now claims not to have had until a month ago, and the administration steadfastly refuses to allow an investigation into what they may have known, that's just insulting.

Personally, I'd be willing to give everyone some slack for not putting the pieces together; it seems obvious in hindsight, but it might well not have been at the time. But to mislead people about what information you had, to refuse to allow the possibility that you might have made a mistake... what kind of responsible, credible government is that?
posted by nickmark at 2:08 PM on May 22, 2002

Dissent, this common sense suggestion will eventually be taken. Only after the streets are littered with more dead -- including our citizen muslims.

First off, if the dead people are littering, maybe they had it coming to them.

Have we really reached a point where "expel the swarthy immigrants" is considered a common-sense suggestion?
posted by rcade at 2:13 PM on May 22, 2002

No, it's not a Catch-22. I would like the government to react in a consistent and appropriate manner to terrorist threats. This would entail that all necessary and possible precautions are taken, publicly and if necessary in secret, sensationalism is avoided, and every effort is made to inform the public in a clear and level-headed manner of what every citizen can or should do.

Clearly, the response to the pre-9/11 warnings was not appropriate, or these catastrophes would have been avoided. A thorough inquiry into what went wrong and why should be in everybody's interest.

The new wave of warnings, to my ear, have an uncomfortably shrill sound to them that renders them useless and does nothing to do anything but instill fear. The government is in effect saying, "Be scared, but go on with your lives," which also falls short of the above criteria.

There's lots of room between doing nothing and paralyzing people with promises of suicide bombers and dirty nukes.
posted by muckster at 2:15 PM on May 22, 2002

I am dismayed that politics seems to be more and more about one side blaming/accusing the other for something and less and less about creating legislation and public service. I am almost scared to speculate that the day-time-talk-show feel of it is by design as a way of pandering to the slack-jawed masses.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that everything said by the white house (Rep. or Dem [or Ind.]) is spin. It's calculated. It's polled. It's thoroughly designed to influence a target audience. It is just a fact of how politics is done. I wish the Dems. (at the moment) would just get over it and move on with doing real legislative work.
posted by plaino at 2:20 PM on May 22, 2002

Oh.. simple way to assure personal liberty for long-time US citizens... expel all Muslims and arabs that are not fully naturalized, allow no more in, and keep a hawk's eye even on the naturalized ones.

Democrites, indeed! Exactly how does a dude calling himself "dissent" have such ditto-esque opinions? Who the heck are you dissenting from- Eichmann!?

Hey, speaking of Eichmann... oddly enough, I just last night watched the HBO movie "Conspiracy", about the Wannsee meetings in 1942 attended by some of the highest ranking officials in the Third Reich meeting to discuss the "Jewish problem". I wasn't very familiar with WWII history, but from the film I understand that the Third Reich had originally been looking to expel all Jews from their borders, not unlike dissent's suggestion with Muslims. The "problem" arose that other countries stopped taking these refugess in, and Germany had millions of Jews living inside its borders, albeit in filthy ghettoes. So in order to get rid of the Jews inside their borders, they implemented the Final Solution- what we call the Holocaust. It's absolutely chilling to watch this movie- which is based on a copy of minutes of the meeting that survived- and listen to these men quibble over the details of whether Jews married to Germans or children of German-Jew marriages are consider Jewish enough to be killed or not. The question in their minds was never "Should we remove the Jews from Germany" but rather "How will we get rid of them"? Sterilization, deportation, and ultimately extermination were the proposals.

I ask: Is it really that far a step from dissent's ideas to those of Heydrich? I'd argue that the structure and form of thought is identical- only the scale, so far, is different. What would dissent come to think if the sheer logistical problem of removing the estimated 3 million Arab-Americans, or the 6 million Muslims (hm... 6 million?) from within the U.S. borders was too immense? What "final solutions" might dissent propose then, since in his mind the dehumanization of Muslims was long since completed?

And NO, this isn't Godwin's law being invoked. I think given dissent's comments, it's perfectly appropriate.
posted by hincandenza at 2:39 PM on May 22, 2002

As for MWO, the site linked up top- I read it daily. It's sometimes even too screechy for me, and obviously biased/partisan, but that doesn't mean it isn't drawing attention to what other media outlets won't. If these threats, according to various sources, have been around for months, and could happen any time, any place, from tomorrow to 5 years from now... then why say anything NOW? That's an odd, convenient coincidence if we're to believe the catch-22 arguments of dagny et al. They keep in secrecy the fact of pre- 9/11 warnings for eight months, and said nothing for a few months on these supposedly new warnings (at least the supposedly more specific ones- obviously, Tom Ridge has been spitting out periodic non-specific warnings since he took office). But now, suddenly, the Administration Devoted to Secrecy decides to let loose the floodgates of warnings just as questions are arising about what they knew re: 9/11 and why it wasn't acted on. Across the board, as MWO documents, even previously soft-spined pundits are asking the tough questions of Bush and questioning the timing of these "alerts".

This administration knew something was up, but up to and including that morning the Administration simply chose to take long vacations in Texas, fly only chartered flights, and read children's books while planes exploded. While I don't believe we can reasonably expect in hindsight Bush could have stopped 9/11 completely, he sure did everything in his power to not prevent something like it, including ignoring the warnings that were piling up and proposing cuts in counterterrorism so as to fund NMD. This is not even to mention that on the morning of, he did nothing while the attacks happened and then, by his own admission, ran scared instead of leaping into action. Leadership, indeed... at least Guiliani, whose politics otherwise I always found repellent, stuck around and got his bad self covered in soot while he gave New Yorkers an inspiring and comforting vision of "someone in control". Jet-hopping around the mid-west while America panicked and calling that leadership... I don't think so.

Heck, I'm become more convinced that if Gore had been president, 9/11 doesn't even happen. At least, not in the form as we knew it- it might have happened in two years when al Qaida regrouped from improved airline security to try a different attack.
posted by hincandenza at 2:46 PM on May 22, 2002

Terrorism is something that is going to be an issue for a long time, simply because of the technology involved. It's just plain easier than every before to cause large-scale destruction. There are many groups that use or want to use terrorism, so far the biggest threat to America comes from Islamist terrorists, but they are by no means the only ones out there who would like to take down the government or kill a few people for their cause.

Those who advocate a terrorism-prevention strategy that involves expelling certain groups/races/relgions from the country are basing their ideas on fear and stupidity and not concepts that will actually help defend the country. Those strageties are doomed to fail on a practical level, and automatically fail at the ethical and moral levels this country has worked so hard to create and defend.
posted by cell divide at 2:49 PM on May 22, 2002

I am dismayed that politics seems to be more and more about one side blaming/accusing the other for something and less and less about creating legislation and public service. I am almost scared to speculate that the day-time-talk-show feel of it is by design as a way of pandering to the slack-jawed masses.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that everything said by the white house (Rep. or Dem [or Ind.]) is spin. It's calculated. It's polled. It's thoroughly designed to influence a target audience.

Couldn't agree more.

It is just a fact of how politics is done. I wish the Dems. (at the moment) would just get over it and move on with doing real legislative work.

Couldn't agree less. Rather, I should say that it's simply WRONG, and I wish that all in government would work to change this sick system before it's too late.
posted by rushmc at 2:57 PM on May 22, 2002

If you want a view of what is going on, try the left-hand article once you get below the screaming headlines of DebkaFile/a> they claim to know what the many threats are about and what is already known about the potential attacks.
posted by Postroad at 3:09 PM on May 22, 2002

Dissent, Faze: you two scare me more than terrorists do. Sure, let's abandon everything America stands for. Gotta keep the homeland safe. Anything else would just be liberal handwringing.

It's a reaction to the current, unjustified witch-hunt going on, seeking to claim that the Executive branch had anything more than unsubstantiated, long-shot threats prior to 9-11.

Did you happen to see this list? Nonspecific, unsubstantiated? Really?
posted by ook at 3:37 PM on May 22, 2002

Oh.. simple way to assure personal liberty for long-time US citizens... expel all Muslims and arabs that are not fully naturalized, allow no more in, and keep a hawk's eye even on the naturalized ones.

As a resident of Oklahoma, let me just say that I wish this policy had been in place before April 19, 1995. It would have helped us a lot. [/sarcasm]
posted by Dirjy at 3:47 PM on May 22, 2002

"I'm not worried about Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda, they've been marginalized." -Dubya and Rummy on why Osama hadn't been found yet, contrary to the "Bin Laden, dead or Alive, smoke 'em out" earlier comments.

OK, what's it gonna be now? Are they marginalized or not? I thought you guys said things were well in hand and our fearless (or feckless as the case may be) leader had won the war against evil in Afghanistan.

Are we in danger or not? Hold on, I'll ask Tom Ridge! Hahaha! He's hiding where? Oh, in Dickie's rabbit hole!! So, the threat must be real then, just important enough for Ashcroft to fly private and Cheney to hide out but not enough for the common folks in NYC to be warned, they're not part of the oligarchy anyway.
posted by nofundy at 5:18 AM on May 23, 2002

nofundy: ""I'm not worried about Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda, they've been marginalized." -Dubya and Rummy"

I must have missed that statement. When, exactly, did they say that? To the contrary, the only thing I've heard either "dubya" (tee-hee, tee-hee) or "rummy" (tee-hee, tee-hee) say is that this is going to be a long fight, and we shouldn't get complacent.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:08 AM on May 23, 2002

No problem. If you weren't so insistent on listening to only that which suits your preconcieved notions, you could have easily found or would have known this yourself. I'll even quote a right wing source, good enough?

"Mr. Bush said last week that while bin Laden remains on the loose, the war has made him less important.
"He's just a person who has now been marginalized," the president said"
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020320-71385163.htm

These quotes are all over the web, just look for yourself next time. I don't lie like your favorite politicians.
Now, get with the program and answer the questions in the original post. BTW- You're sooo cute with your weak attempts to ridicule me!
posted by nofundy at 8:04 AM on May 23, 2002

First, Mr. Assumption, I'm not right-wing, I'm not a Republican, neither Bush nor Rumsfeld are remotely "my favorite policitians," and in 13 years I've never voted for other than a Democrat. I just personally feel that dealing with these complicated international issues is a difficult job for any administration, and that all the armchair quarterbacks in the world who think they have all the answers, and who feel the need use cutesy little catch-names like "dubya" and "rummy" to suggest idiocy, grossly overestimate their own intelligence.

Second, do you not appreciate the difference between saying that Osama Bin Laden, the person, is just one man, and has been marginalized, and your creative expansion of that quote into bin Laden and al Qaeda. Or how about your invention of the phrase "I'm not worried..."? It's pretty clear that the administration has always taken the position that al qaeda is still a threat. See here. Or how about this, from 2 days ago:

"Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that while the war on terror has hurt al-Qaeda, the terrorist network remains a threat. "Just like a wounded animal is the most dangerous, they (al-Qaeda) still pose a threat to our armed forces," Myers said."

Doesn't sound like Bush, et al, are "not worried" about al qaeda to me. Now do you see how your quote was just a teensy bit inaccurate?
posted by pardonyou? at 8:52 AM on May 23, 2002