Waving the bloody shirt

[REDWAVE]

After the Civil War, Republican politicians would frequently invoke the Civil War dead in order to dissuade people from voting Democrat (the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion"). This became known as "waving the bloody shirt." Today, with the one year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks rapidly approaching, the ruling class is again waving the bloody shirt, invoking the memory of those who died on Sept. 11 last year for their own sordid political purposes. The war hysteria and jingoism which was whipped up in the American people last fall has mostly dissipated now. Our capitalist masters will try diligently to rekindle it, through one sensationalist 9/11 "retrospective" after another, culminating in an orgy of war propaganda on the big day itself. Some points to use to counteract the new wave of chauvinism and xenophobia the bosses will try to engender are the following:

(1) Why has there still been NO public investigation of what was (at the very least) a massive intelligence failure on the part of the U.S. government-- a whole year after the tragedy occurred? What is Bush hiding?

(2) Where's Osama bin Laden? Why hasn't Bush gotten him yet?

(3) More innocent Afghans died in the U.S. terror bombing campaign than Americans died in 9/11.

(4) By all objective accounts, Afghanistan is in much WORSE shape now than it was before the U.S. "liberated" it.

(5) Why has there been a systematic assault upon OUR civil liberties and basic democratic rights by the Bushies since 9/11?

(6) Is the recent beating of war drums against Iraq a way of diverting attention from Bush's and Cheney's wrongdoing while at Harken and Halliburton, respectively?

And the beat goes on . . .

 

[REDWAVE]

Poll

A new poll reveals most Americans don't think the U.S. government is doing a very good job of protecting them against possible attacks.

That's because protecting us is no part of the real agenda of the U.S. government. Projecting U.S. power throughout the world, and enabling U.S. based multinational corporations to loot and plunder other countries-- that's their true agenda.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I hate America. I can't see past the end of my nose. The world should be run by 14 year olds. Everybody just listen to me.

 

[REDWAVE]

Nadir

You've sunk to a new low, DCL: doctoring up a phony quote.

 

[HeavyStick]

you gave an older thread a new name and started with a different rant. copy and paste the same subject matter, and update the ending.

 

[Guest]

I'm sorry Red. I don't give a flying fuck what the government will try to do with the 9/11 tragedy. Today I will do what's right. They can do what they want, and I'll complain about it later.

I know there's a lot the government needs to answer to. It's not gonna happen today, and I don't want to waste my energy on them right now. They're not the ones that are important to me.

Moon

 

[REDWAVE]

Under God?

Yeah, okay, Moon Wolf, but do you pledge allegiance "under God" or sans God (as the pledge was UNTIL 1954)?

 

[Guest]

Re: Under God?

Yeah, okay, Moon Wolf, but do you pledge allegiance "under God" or sans God (as the pledge was UNTIL 1954)?

Notice the AV doesn't say one way or another, does it?

 

[REDWAVE]

That's why I asked.

 

[Guest]

That's why I asked.

My spirituality beliefs have nothing to do with this.

 

[HeavyStick]

My spirituality beliefs have nothing to do with this.

just give the spin doctor some time

 

[Guest]

just give the spin doctor some time

He can have all the time he wants. They are two separate issues for me.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Moon

 

[teddybear4play]

Some points to use to counteract the new wave of chauvinism and zenophobia the bosses will try to engender are the following:

I was going to ask what male superiority has to do with anything, but then I paused and looked up "chauvinism" in the dictionary, and found that it also means "blind patriotism (see also 'jingoism')," so congrats RED, your vocabulary exceeded my own in this instance.

However, your spelling buddy says "zenophobia" is spelled with an X. Unless you're trying to imply a fear of Buddhists.

(1) Why has there still been NO public investigation of what was (at the very least) a massive intelligence failure on the part of the U.S. government-- a whole year after the tragedy occurred? What is Bush hiding?

Who said it had to do with Bush hiding something? It's Congress who can appoint investigations. Bush didn't consent to earlier investigations because they were partisan witch-hunts.

Asking for an impartial investigation so soon after the attack (and yes, one year in this case is "soon" — the wounds are still fresh) is lunacy. Personally, I'd rather have one in five years that's thorough and impartial than a rushed, politically-driven one now.

(2) Where's Osama bin Laden? Why hasn't Bush gotten him yet?

Osama bin Laden got as far away as he could as soon as he could. It may take a while to find him, or he may already be dead. We don't know yet. And if they did "get him," you'd probably be bitching because his human rights were being violated.

(3) More innocent Afghans died in the U.S. terror bombing campaign than Americans died in 9/11.

Please cite your sources for this, as they may be very dubious.

Also, you can't just play a numbers game with this — two thousand eight hundred people were deliberately murdered on September 11. However many Afghan innocents were killed were tragic accidents and coincidences in a justly fought war.

And it's not like they weren't given ample warning. That's one thing the 9/11 victims didn't have.

(4) By all objective accounts, Afghanistan is in much WORSE shape now than it was before the U.S. "liberated" it.

I have serious reservations about the "objectivity" of any account(s) that you can produce and believe in. Sorry.

(5) Why has there been a systematic assault upon OUR civil liberties and basic democratic rights by the Bushies since 9/11?

I'll let this one slide, because I haven't really kept up on shit, and some of the complaints may be justified, which is something the rest of these piddly little talking points don't have.

(6) Is the recent beating of war drums against Iraq a way of diverting attention from Bush's and Cheney's wrongdoing while at Harken and Halliburton, respectively?

No. Those stories didn't get any traction even before the "case against Iraq" began in earnest. Whether or not you support it, the case the Administration is making for regime change in Iraq is genuine, at the very least.

TB4p

 

[REDWAVE]

O, you want to argue, huh?

I imagine my vocabulary exceeds yours in a great many instances, TB. After Pearl Harbor, an investigation was held within months. At first, Bush made a big deal about Osama, and pledged to "get him dead or alive." Now that he's failed to do that, he doesn't even mention Osama any more. Now Hussein is the Enemy du Jour. Who will it be next?

You don't cite any sources. Look it up. Legally, a person is deemed to have intended the foreseeable consequences of his acts. It was eminently foreseeable that large number of civilians would be slaughtered by the massive U.S. terror bombing of Afghanistan, which was not just or right at all, in my book.

 

[HeavyStick]

*spin*

*spin*

*spin*

 

[Guest]

Re: O, you want to argue, huh?

*sigh* I really have to do this. Red, I really do like you, and admire your one mindedness, regardless of the flack you recieve here. I have to state the following, though I really didn't want to get into this.

I imagine my vocabulary exceeds yours in a great many instances, TB.

That was a cheap shot. Try again.

After Pearl Harbor, an investigation was held within months.

There was a world war going on. You can't compare this situation to this one. Apples/oranges.

At first, Bush made a big deal about Osama, and pledged to "get him dead or alive." Now that he's failed to do that, he doesn't even mention Osama any more. Now Hussein is the Enemy du Jour. Who will it be next?

Bush's father thought he'd get Hussein, just as Jr thought he'd get bin Laden. Here I agree. Change the agenda to cover up the defects.

You don't cite any sources. Look it up. Legally, a person is deemed to have intended the foreseeable consequences of his acts. It was eminently foreseeable that large number of civilians would be slaughtered by the massive U.S. terror bombing of Afghanistan, which was not just or right at all, in my book.

Taken out of context, this really makes no sense. I still agree that the taliban needed to be taken out, and have no arguement with the way we did so. Unfortunately civilians were killed, but they were under taliban rule too. Notice I don't capitalize 'taliban'?

US feminists had been writing to US government 2 years before this happened pleading help for the women being persecuted. Too bad it took these extreme measure for the US to do something, and shame on them for allowing this. But I'm sorry, I'm pleased the taliban are no longer ruling, even if they had to murder so many Unitied States Citizens for the US to understand how dangerous they were. Perhaps I should dig up some old letters I personally wrote.

Moon

 

[Guest]

ooops, is my passion showing?

 

[HeavyStick]

very nice rebuttal Moon.... I fear it has fallen of deaf ears. There is an investigation going, my question to redwave is who should do the investigation? The FBI has one going.

 

[Guest]

very nice rebuttal Moon.... I fear it has fallen of deaf ears. There is an investigation going, my question to redwave is who should do the investigation? The FBI has one going.

Well thanks, HS.

I do believe Red has ears. (prove me right, Red.....or.....)

FBI doing the investigation into whom? We won't read about it for at least 10 years. (even if they find something.)

Moon

 

[HeavyStick]

since the opening moments of the attacks. Congress has already stated where mistakes happened. (Intel Agencies and agencies not sharing resources.)

Who is supposed to do the investigation that redwave wants?

 

[Guest]

since the opening moments of the attacks. Congress has already stated where mistakes happened. (Intel Agencies and agencies not sharing resources.)

Who is supposed to do the investigation that redwave wants?

We'll not know the real story for years to come, no matter 'who' does the investigating. The CIA/FBI ARE part of the government. They'll only report what is authorized to them. Secret clearance's for national security will be foremost. (whether imagined or in truth)

Moon

 

[HeavyStick]

I believe more info will be released as time passes, this is due to the sensitive nature of current operations and spies abroad.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: O, you want to argue, huh?

I imagine my vocabulary exceeds yours in a great many instances, TB.

Possibly, but I have a B.A. in English, so perhaps not. I may not have known that "chauvinism" also meant "jingoism," but then again, I don't make it a point to seek out epithets to hurl at the United States and capitalism. I also try not to use big words when small ones will do, and try to be as succinct as possible (kinda like the President in that way ). If you confuse or bore people, your argument is weakened.

After Pearl Harbor, an investigation was held within months.

While on some levels, the September 11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attack are similar, you really can't make a straight comparison. Pearl Harbor had less deaths (2400 to 2800 for 9/11), was a military target, and was also sixty years ago. In comparison, we all watched the September 11 attacks on television. They were designed to terrorize us all, not as a specific tactical attack as was Pearl Harbor.

And, most importantly to this discussion, the atmosphere was much less politically charged. Franklin Roosevelt had already been in office for nine years, having been overwhelmingly supported thrice by the American voters. And it was well before the climate we've had since Watergate, where it was very disrespectful to accuse the President of the United States of any type of scandal. (So far as I know, nobody thought FDR "let" Pearl Harbor happen in the immediate aftermath of the attack, although certainly people do now; foolishly, I might add). News sources were more tightly controlled in '41; there was no Internet, no wildcard observers.

There has, so far as I know, never been a congressional investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. One could argue that the "intelligence failures" of that act of terrorism were the same as September 11, only that the latter resulted in more deaths.

At first, Bush made a big deal about Osama, and pledged to "get him dead or alive." Now that he's failed to do that, he doesn't even mention Osama any more.

He hasn't mentioned Osama because he's not the threat he once was. He's either dead or in hiding; much of his financial assets has been frozen; many of his cohorts and followers have been killed or captured; and he no longer has free reign of the country like he did a year ago. I read somewhere that intelligence agencies have bumped Hezbollah above al-Qaeda on the list of terror networks who represent the greatest threat to America. If I find it again, I'll let you know.

Now Hussein is the Enemy du Jour. Who will it be next?

Whomever has the methods, motives, and opportunities to make a similar attack against American citizens.

You don't cite any sources. Look it up.

Okay then, here's one. It cites the 3,767 figure used by many anti-war groups (for all the independence they claim to have, they all seem to use the same figure — go figure), but also has someone who comes up with a smaller number: 1000 to 1300. Moreover, it mentions that any or all the accounts out of that region are hazy. In one attack, the Taliban claimed 200 citizens were killed; some survivors say 50. (Note also the link: globalpolicy.org opposes sanctions and is highly critical of the U.S. saber-rattling against Iraq.)

Legally, a person is deemed to have intended the foreseeable consequences of his acts. It was eminently foreseeable that large number of civilians would be slaughtered by the massive U.S. terror bombing of Afghanistan, which was not just or right at all, in my book.

I'd like to know how the U.S. should have proceeded then, if you bind them by saying that they can take no action that would forseeably lead to any civilian deaths.

Every American civilian that died was good for Osama bin Laden; but every Afghan civilian that dies is ALSO bad for us and also good for the enemy — it weakens our moral advantage and strengthens their resolve.

War also does not have the same legal boundaries as other acts. I have heard no independent condemnations from any soverign governing body, be it the U.N. or otherwise, as to how the war is being carried out.

And, if you also want to play this hand, you run into a conundrum: if one is responsible for what is eminently forseeable, then Osama bin Laden had to know that September 11 would precipitate a massive U.S. retaliatory response that would likely include civilian deaths.

Oh, and one more thing: it's nearly impossible to define innocents in Afghanistan. One of the major problems with terrorism is that it blurs the line between combatant and civilian. Hiding amongst civilians blurs it further. However, every one of the people who died on September 11 was innocent — and al-Qaeda meant for as many of them to die as possible. We don't.

TB4p

 

[Guest]

I believe more info will be released as time passes, this is due to the sensitive nature of current operations and spies abroad.

That's part of it, but there's always more than that.

 

[Weird Harold]

After Pearl Harbor, an investigation was held within months.

I note that youfail to mention that modern historians generally agree that the findings of the immediate investigation after Pearl Harbor were a whitewash and search for scapegoats -- a position the US military agrees with because they overturned the findings against the Pearl Harbor commanders in the mid-1990's and exonerated them post-humously from any blame.