Wag the Osama

[ABlairican Pie]

January 21, 2006

Wag the Osama

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Isn't it a mighty big coincidence that Osama returns for a bizarre appearance just as Bush is on the ropes for illegal spying on Americans -- and as Karl Rove announces that he is going to use fear again to maintain one-party dictatorial control over America in the fall elections?

Not that we are skeptical or anything, but on top of that, the White House media echo chamber used the alleged and ludicrous "negotiate or I will attack" video to vilify Dems for being weak in the war on terror and "aiding" the "enemy."

Of course, it was Bush who said a few years ago, he would get Osama dead or alive -- and then after failing to do so said that Osama didn't matter. It wasn't long after that that he told NBC's Matt Lauer that he didn't think we could win the war on terror. (We're not sure if he was talking about the bad guys or his war of terrorizing Americans, but we think he meant the war against the bad guys.)

But the Republicans are all attack and no truth. Something the Democratic leadership just can't absorb, so the GOP junkyard dogs project George's short fallings (too numerous to count) on the dreaded "liberal enemy." This is called scapegoating.

It is the eternal tool of the demagogue. Ann Coulter is both the caricature and the real epitome of the strategy. In essence, it relies on making anyone who disagrees with our Il Duce as the enemy.

The Jews in Europe experienced this, and yes the comparison is appropriate. We don't apologize for it. Just read Mein Kampf. You make your opposition (or a "perceived" opposition) into something to be so dreaded that they pose a threat to the national interest and need to be suppressed.

Yes, the Jews in Germany thought, "It can't happen to us, not here in a civilized nation." But what is civilized about the gulag of torture centers that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have set up? It's a short leap from "them" being tortured to anyone who opposes the "supreme ruler."

So paid propagandists like Sean Hannity employ the Goebbels techniques of equating terrorism with Republican political opponents. The very title of a recent Hannity propaganda tome reveals this strategy: "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism." Because evil, in the right wing extremist world, is both terrorism and liberalism.

As a blurb for "Deliver Us from Evil" claims, "he [Hannity] reveals why the Democrats imploded and the president prevailed-while urging Americans to stay the course and remain vigilant about the twin dangers of terrorism abroad and liberalism at home."

Hannity is employing the "mirroring" linguistic techniques that George Bush's handlers had him use to sell the Iraq War by placing the phrase "9/11" and Saddam Hussein together in as many sentences and contexts as possible. In Hannity's case, the goal is to put terrorism and liberalism in the same category of evil. Liberals are the enemy because they endanger America, he argues.

This is very dangerous territory, which the Democrats are intimidated by, just as the Weimar Republic fell to the bullying and emotional demagoguery of the brown shirts. Liberals and Democrats who think that this is just some sort of passing lowbrow phenomena are making a critical error. Liberals are being "mirrored" with terrorists as the source of "evil" in America.

You ignore such demagoguery at your peril.

That is what Bush was doing when he said that there are "appropriate forms" of debate on the war -- and "other" forms that aid the terrorists. The latter are any criticisms of his actions. If you say he is committing an illegal act, you are aiding the enemy.

And so it was time to roll out Osama again. To continue his march toward dictatorship, Bush requires Osama . They are, in a way, two adversaries who need each other for political survival among their constituents.

If Bush didn't have Osama, Rove would have invented him.

You can do a lot of things to create great videotape "B" roll, just watch the movie "Wag the Dog."

It's the Bush game plan in a nutshell.

Just repeat after us: Fear, Distraction, Fear, Distraction, Fear, Distraction...

Yes, there's a terrorist threat to our way of life. But there's also a more immediate threat to our Constitution, our democracy and our liberties coming from the White House. In the name of preventing the terrorists from attacking us for our freedoms, Bush is taking them away from us one by one. He is letting the terrorists win. He is betraying America.

Osama has checkmated him.

The real enablers of helping the terrorists achieve their goals of bringing democracy to its knees are in the White House.

And, although memory in a time of 6-hour news cycles is fleeting, it might be worth a little jog of the brain to remember that an alleged Osama tape showed up the Friday before the 2004 presidential election, widely credited with helping George W. Bush gain votes based on the subconscious "fear factor."

Such coincidences have a way of continuing to occur at vitally important moments for the Bush Administration, don't they?

Either Osama wants Bush to stay in power -- and, therefore, Bush is the real choice of the terrorists -- Osama is working in cahoots with the Bush Administration in a sort of a wink and a nod "understanding between enemies" sort of way, or the video was fabricated.

It's one of the three, folks, because Osama is not dumb -- and he knows that the release of any video or audiotape at such times only strengthens Bush's hand to clamp down on freedom and the Constitution domestically (a goal of Al Qaeda according to Bush himself), strengthen the consolidation of Imperial presidential powers, and continue the war in Iraq and the torturing and killing of anyone Bush's crew considers a "non-combatant threat."

And this videotape will be used by the Busheviks to try and bolster their right to illegally wiretap Americans -- and then use that precedent to further break the law and violate the Constitution.

So why would Osama release videos and taperecordings at moments that only help Bush when he is in political need?

Ah, now you understand.

[Fleet]

It's only a coincidence to the leftists.

[Fonzarelli]

Very true, indeed. Especially thís:

That is what Bush was doing when he said that there are "appropriate forms" of debate on the war -- and "other" forms that aid the terrorists. The latter are any criticisms of his actions. If you say he is committing an illegal act, you are aiding the enemy.

I've heard too much. I've seen it on thos boards too. As soon as the neo-con's can't win an argument, they go saying: "you're siding with the terrorists" or "you're too supportive of Saddam Hussein/al Qu'aida", when in fact, the only thing I said was that Bush did something wrong.

This article hits the nail right on the head.

Especially that part about Goebbels was clever. This one if about his 'colleague' Goering:

[Fleet]

Strange, neither I or no one I know has had their civil rights violated.
The Patriot Act does have checks and balances:

[Fleet]

Let me add that you liberals are really something!
If the current Patriot Act and other acts were around back in the '90s, maybe the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.
The terrorists who were in this country were communicating with al Qaeda members overseas.
Now that Pres. Bush is trying to track down any such calls in hopes of preventing another terrorist attack, all you liberals can do is whine!
And if there is another attack, you same liberals will whine, "Why didn't Bush prevent it?"
Absolutely amazing!

[Fonzarelli]

The Patriot Act does violate civil liberties. E.g the FBI can search your house without asking your permission and even without telling you after they did it. Hey, no wonder you don't know anybody who had their civil liberties violated! They just don't tell ya! Also, illegal wiretapping is a violation of privacy. Bush is taking away the freedoms the terrorists seek to destroy.

A Patriot Act is never the solution. The end doesn't justify the means. You didn't need a Patriot Act to prevent 9/11 from happening. All you needed was president Bush to act after he read the report about Bin Laden on August 6, 2001. Or a John Ashcroft who would have taken the terrorist threat seriously instaed of telling his people he didn't want to hear about it anymore.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Fonzarelli

The Patriot Act does violate civil liberties. E.g the FBI can search your house without asking your permission and even without telling you after they did it. Hey, no wonder you don't know anybody who had their civil liberties violated! They just don't tell ya! Also, illegal wiretapping is a violation of privacy. Bush is taking away the freedoms the terrorists seek to destroy.

A Patriot Act is never the solution. The end doesn't justify the means. You didn't need a Patriot Act to prevent 9/11 from happening. All you needed was president Bush to act after he read the report about Bin Laden on August 6, 2001. Or a John Ashcroft who would have taken the terrorist threat seriously instaed of telling his people he didn't want to hear about it anymore.

Would you show me exactly where in the Patriot Act it says the FBI can search homes without asking permission?
What we needed was President during the '90s who didn't cut FBI and CIA intelligence so bad the info we were receiving was much less accurate and less in quantity than the intelligence during the '80s.

[Fonzarelli]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Would you show me exactly where in the Patriot Act it says the FBI can search homes without asking permission?
What we needed was President during the '90s who didn't cut FBI and CIA intelligence so bad the info we were receiving was much less accurate and less in quantity than the intelligence during the '80s.

The Patriot Act says the FBI can, that's all you need to know. If you think I'm dreaming all this up, then well... you're wrong and frankly, I couldn't care less.

What you needed was a president Bush who didn't cut the FBI (He did? Yes, he did!) and who acted when he received that report. Or a John Ashcroft who didn't tell his people 'he didn't want to hear about it anymore'. Or an administration which didn't ask the CIA to come up with false information linking 9/11 to Iraq. Or an administration which didn't use false information although they were told the information was false.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Fonzarelli

The Patriot Act says the FBI can, that's all you need to know. If you think I'm dreaming all this up, then well... you're wrong and frankly, I couldn't care less.

Not quite good enough. You made the claim, now back it up. Show me where in the Patriot Act it says that the FBI can search homes without permission. Do that or admit (again) that you are wrong.

[Fonzarelli]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Not quite good enough. You made the claim, now back it up. Show me where in the Patriot Act it says that the FBI can search homes without permission. Do that or admit (again) that you are wrong.

Hey, you know what? Go look it up and see for yourself. Prove that I was wrong.
Kinda like Hussein, who had too proof he *didn't* have something.

[Dr. Jazz]

Top Ten Surprising Facts About Osama Bin Laden

From the Late Show with David Letterman, 1/25/06:


10. Plans to release next threatening videotape in high-definition

9. In the seventies, had a gay fling with the blind sheikh

8. Secretly likes Kosher pickles

7. Middle name: Duane

6. Stole "Death to America" catchphrase from Fran Tarkenton

5. Got cave hooked up with Sirius so he can listen to Howard Stern

4. Knows all the words to the Black Eyed Peas song "My Humps"

3. After Colts loss to Steelers, declared jihad on Mike Vanderjagt

2. Has a bumper sticker that reads, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry"

1. The son-of-a-bitch is still alive

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Fonzarelli

Hey, you know what? Go look it up and see for yourself. Prove that I was wrong.
Kinda like Hussein, who had too proof he *didn't* have something.

That's not how it works in a debate. You make some claim and then ask the other person to prove it wrong!
I asked where it says in the Patriot Act that the FBI can search homes without asking permission. If you know that to be true you should be able to post that part of the act right here. I'll be waiting.

[Fonzarelli]

Originally Posted by Fleet

That's not how it works in a debate. You make some claim and then ask the other person to prove it wrong!
I asked where it says in the Patriot Act that the FBI can search homes without asking permission. If you know that to be true you should be able to post that part of the act right here. I'll be waiting.

You never provide claims, I do.

But you are the kind of person who would still ask sources to back up the Holocaust or the Apartheid in South-Africa.

The FBI can. It happens. Check it. If you want me to stae what's already known: I'm not playing along. I don;t have the whole 'act' in my hands, but I know my facts, so I'm not going to spend the whole night on Google to search for exactly *that* quote that I need. You either believe me when I'm saying something that is known, or you don't and make a fool out of yourself. You decide.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Fonzarelli

You never provide claims, I do.

But you are the kind of person who would still ask sources to back up the Holocaust or the Apartheid in South-Africa.

The FBI can. It happens. Check it. If you want me to stae what's already known: I'm not playing along. I don;t have the whole 'act' in my hands, but I know my facts, so I'm not going to spend the whole night on Google to search for exactly *that* quote that I need. You either believe me when I'm saying something that is known, or you don't and make a fool out of yourself. You decide.

Until you can post a copy of the Patriot Act which shows that the FBI can search homes without asking permission you have not proved anything. I'm pretty sure that if what you claim was in there, you would have posted it by now.