And Now for Something Completely Different

The Fear Card Party loses their Card

Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at 2:16 PM

We have been through five election cycles since 9/11 and in every single one of them Republican candidates and Fox News has done their best to label every Democratic candidate, no matter if they were liberal, moderate, or conservative, as weak on terrorism. It had worked moderately well until the 2006 and 2008 elections where Democrats swept into power in Congress and then into the White House. However, this has not stopped the Republican machine from pushing the claim that Democrats were weak on terrorism. They even went as far as claiming that not only were Democrats weak on terrorism but that they were supportive of the terrorists or in the worst, most despicable moments claiming that Democrats sided with the terrorists and were hoping that they would win.

Naturally, none of it is true. Sure, Republicans could point to wildly taken out of context quotes in their efforts to push the idea. What they were participating in was playing the fear card. Both parties have done it with limited success throughout the years, but the Republicans continually dipped into that well election cycle after election cycle. They could have been doing this because they feared that the American population really did not buy into their social plans for the country, one that could potentially turn this country from the a democracy to a theocracy. Whatever, their reasons, they continued doing so. They played this fear care especially hard in 2006 when it looked like the Democrats could take back Congress.

The Democrats won control either because their message rang more loudly with the voters or because the voters had enough of the fear card.

In 2008, they tried it again by attempting to not only paint Barack Obama as a Muslim, but an un-American (or even in certain cases as not even American) sympathizer of the terrorists. Despite these claims he still became President.

These charges did not stop. Anytime Obama visited a foreign country they made it out as Obama's apology tour where he apologized to all the Muslims in the world. This they said was even more proof that Obama was a secret Muslim that was trying to bring Sharia law to the United States and secretly give aid to the terrorists.

Then, on April 29, 2011 the United States believed they had found Osama bin Laden (the mastermind behind 9/11) and Obama gave the order to take him out. Keep in mind there was only a 50/50 chance that Osama was in the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. On May 1, Navy SEALS stormed the compound (and in one instance crashed into the compound, fortunately no one was injured) and killed Osama bin Laden.

Then a funny thing happened. All those Republicans that had been claiming for close to three years that Obama was weak on terrorism changed their minds and suddenly began leaping praise on Obama for finally taking Osama out ...

Naw, just kidding.

Instead we have more of the same, he is still being called soft on terrorism. Some Republicans have even come out and said that Obama should not get any of the credit but the military and specifically former President Bush should get the lions share if not all the credit for Osama bin Laden finally getting justice. Not surprisingly, some of these same people are the ones who for years claimed that President Bush should not receive any fault in 9/11 but that former President Clinton should get all the blame for 9/11.

I hope you see the disconnect there, if not let me explain it. The same people who sought to blame the sitting President for the events that led up to 9/11 happening but a former President are the same ones now not wanting to give any credit to the current President for finally making the call to get Osama but would rather give all the credit to a former President. In other words, don't blame the bad stuff on Bush just give him the credit when something good happens.

The Presidential Election of 2012 will cover a great many topics. Here is hoping that the Republicans (whoever they might be) that make a run at the Presidency will not make one of those topics terrorism. As it stands right now it is a losing issue for them.

Comments

View 7 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Michael,

I thought KSM was the mastermind behind 9/11.

"They could have been doing this because they feared that the American population really did not buy into their social plans for the country, one that could potentially turn this country from the a democracy to a theocracy"

I'm relieved that the conspiracy loonies aren't only on the right around here. Really...theocracy? Who's using the fear card now?

"Instead we have more of the same, he is still being called soft on terrorism. Some Republicans have even come out and said that Obama should not get any of the credit but the military and specifically former President Bush should get the lions share if not all the credit for Osama bin Laden finally getting justice. Not surprisingly, some of these same people are the ones who for years claimed that President Bush should not receive any fault in 9/11 but that former President Clinton should get all the blame for 9/11."

Who is saying this? It's not that I don't just take you at your word.....or wait, that is it, you have shown that your word isn't solid, especially when it comes to the difference between fact an opinion. Are you talking Republican officials, advisors, or just people who you believe are Republicans?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, May 10, 2011, at 4:03 PM
Coming from someone who compared Americans to terrorists just because he didn't like that they celebrated the death of America's boogeyman I can only take what you say with a grain of salt. I guess it just goes to prove that you will slime anyone for any reason.

Then again you called my blog a waste and continue to post on it (though despite what you actually said and what you claimed you meant to say are worlds apart) so your little diatribes aren't that surprising. Still, it does lead to the question of why you have so much disdain for your fellow Americans that you compare them to terrorists.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 10, 2011, at 5:43 PM
Thats really rich Michael. Calling someones response a diatribe. How would you classify your original post? And I didnt see any links to verify your assertion that "some" Republicans didnt give any credit to Obama for "getting" Osama. Do you not chastise others for that little tactic? I will have to agree with sw; I have been led to believe (silly me) that 9/11 was orchestrated by KSM. Osama may have o.k.'d the plan and financed it, but KSM has claimed credit for masterminding the plot.

And you still havent answered my question from your blog just before this one. Do you believe that the planning for the raid that eliminated bin Laden was conceived and executed just within the past two and a half years? What do you say about the Bush policies that Obama is continuing to pursue? Obama himself has given the Bush administration some kudo's.

I had started to think that maybe you were becoming more reasonable. This blog sends me back to square one where I believed you were blinded by your ideology.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, May 10, 2011, at 5:59 PM
Mike,

I don't know if I would call SW's comments a diatribe. That usually implies a long rambling attack. Asking for proof isn't usually an attack. Unless, there has already been given proof. I don't see you linking a bunch of stories or even giving some names. You are just using the THEY phenomenon. THEY are doing it. THOSE GUYS are doing it. REPUBLICANS are doing it.

The funny thing is about using "the fear card" (whatever that is) I seem to remember a certain blogger using "the fear card" fairly recently. Not to point fingers, but I think that the blogs were about NPR, Education, and health care. Curious that, eh?

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, May 10, 2011, at 10:34 PM
Michael,

I'm a little surprised by your guerilla tactics today, you "attack" me then run away without addressing my point. Actually, I guess I'm not surprised. :)

What in my post did you not find truthful? The only verifiable thing I said was that KSM was the mastermind of 9/11, even though you have more than once credited UBL with it, incorrectly I must add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Your entire response to me is classic in execution. You "attack" me personally, not related to what my post is at all. Then run away without answering a fair criticism, one that you levy all the time: people saying things without backing it up. How many times have you commented that people "always" resort to personal attacks when they can't argue points? It seems you are guilty of that today, once again showing your hypocrisy. Hello again Mr. Pot.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 11, 2011, at 8:35 AM
Michael,

Since you posted a new blog, whining about how people are mean to Liberals, does this mean you will not be addressing my charge that you are doing what you say you hate?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, May 11, 2011, at 7:42 PM
I just realized, that if the republican party lost "the fear card" It might have happened quite a while ago, the Democratic party seems to have found it, and are using it quite successfully. Just like many of the previous administrations policies, eh?

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, May 11, 2011, at 10:15 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register