Updated below
From NBC's "Press the Meat", aka, "Meet the Press", this past Sunday…
The Republican Party's "idea man", Mr. Newton Gingrich…..
"Let me just say, I think people should be afraid. I think the lesson of 1993, the first time they bombed the World Trade Center, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of Khobar Towers, where American servicemen were killed in Saudi Arabia, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the two embassy bombings in east Africa was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the Cole being bombed in Yemen was fear is probably appropriate. I'll tell you, if you aren't a little bit afraid after 9/11 and 3,100 Americans killed inside the United States by an effort, if you weren't worried about the second-wave attack that was designed to take out the biggest building in Los Angeles, I think that, that you are out of touch with reality."
Seems relatively clear what the GOP's idea man was trying to communicate, right? Be scared. I don't think I've heard such clarity before from the Party of Fear. Not a lot of nuance in what Gingrich said……be afraid, stay afraid, and the appropriate response to a tiny band of stateless, loosely connected Islamic extremists….is fear.
Those who are not afraid, those who refuse to give in to fear, those who do not tremble and quake constantly in a state of horrified fear of a handful of international anarchists, are….."out of touch with reality."
This from the GOP's idea man. Time to party, in fear naturally, like it's 9-11 everyday. Everything old is still old, but new again for the Party of No-to-Everything-but-Fear. No, the GOP didn't want to help stimulate a failing economy, didn't want to pass a federal budget, don't want to approve any straight talking Obama nominees, don't want Minnesota's voters to have a say in their own state elections, but what this same GOP is sure that they want…..is for Americans to be afraid.
The Party of Fear has not always been afraid. The Party of Fear's representatives haven't always been heard on "Press the Meat" promoting fear as the "appropriate response" to, like, everything. In fact, when then Counterterrorism Chief, Richard Clarke, was trying to persuade the newly inaugurated Bush administration that they should be, you now, afraid of the Bin Laden network, nary a Party of Fear flinch was detected. When Clarke's "hair was on fire" during early/middle 2001 in response to tremendous chatter of an impending Al-Qaida strike….the Party of Fear, the President and Vice-President of Fear, were calm and unconcerned.
Even though Clarke had pestered Condi repeatedly for an interview/briefing with Bush to map out a strategy against Bin Laden's group, the first such meeting wasn't held until the first week of September, 2001. There certainly was no urgent fear over Clarke's concerns. It took 9 months for Clarke to be heard by the President. The "appropriate response" during that time was anything but fearful.
George and Condi's response to any potential U.S. retaliation for the Cole bombing? "We don't want to just be swatting flies." No fear expressed in that statement. The "appropriate response" then was indifference, apathy….but not fear.
When Bush was repeatedly briefed in 2001 on the threat from Al-Qaida and Bin Laden's desire to strike inside the U.S……there was no fear, no "appropriate response" of fear. Instead, there was only a cynical, craven response to the warnings…."Ok, you've covered your ass", Bush told his CIA briefer, August, 2001.
So, fear, being afraid all the time about scary, scary Islamic extremists, hasn't always been the Republican Party's message to Americans. Only now, in the midst of numerous new and expanding revelations about Bush administration war crimes do we hear that the "appropriate response" should be, once again, fear of all moving things.
Be afraid of our "Homeland" SuperMax prisons. Although no one has ever escaped from one, and we currently hold more dangerous killers within those walls than Islamic extremists, although we currently hold a couple hundred "terrorists" in U.S. prisons also…..the "appropriate response" to bringing Gitmo detainees into those ironclad facilities? Be scared sh*tless.
Be afraid if we stop torturing captives. That is the "appropriate response" by the GOP to ending the Bush/Cheney torture regime. Never mind that torturing Islamic detainees makes other Islamics want to kill us even more….and, therefore, makes us less safe. We're told by The GOP Idea Man that ending the torture of detainees makes us less safe, and since Obama put an end to it, the only "appropriate response" is to be extremely afraid.
The Idea Man of the Republican Party, Newton Gingrich…..the silent-until-out-of-office ex-VP, Richard Cheney…..and a gaggle of goofy GOP fear goons, none of whom were the least bit afraid of Bin Laden and Al-Qaida before 9-11 are now seen entering D.C buildings with boxes of Depends.
What these "appropriate" responders are really afraid of?
Getting outed, indicted and punished for their crimes.
Update: I can barely believe it….the Divine General Petreaus isn't afraid, like Newt and Dick and 90 sissy seantors are…..how could the Divine General refuse to endorse the only "appropriate response" to closing Gitmo, i.e., be afraid? How can the Divine General be so willing to endanger Americans like that? Think he hates America?
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Should we now be afraid of North Korea? I hope the UN will protect us.
Afraid of a tin-pot national cult-leader nut? I'm certainly not….but I'm sure conservatives are. Republicans are afraid of the Dear Leader's shadow.
Declaring N.Korea part of the "axis of evil" helped the situation greatly, don't you think? That was some conservative, patriotic and intelligent foreign policy leadership we can believe in…..rather than limp-wristed, frenchified diplomatic talks. Negotiating is for wimps like Reagan.
If I'm not mistaken we've been negotiating with North Korea since Clinton was president. Alot of good that has done. Pretty sure the same will happen with Iran. Keep negotiating until they develop their weapons.
Maybe L'il Kim decided to rattle the saber after reading about Obama and that cab driver.
Homophobia aside, it's not a strong message at all.
Bush ended Clinton's diplomatic approach to N. Korea. Bush didn't replace diplomacy with anything….he simply ended it. The Decider.
The only "strong message", unfortunately, that neo-cons want to send is in the form of a nuclear missile. But that's only because neo-cons are so scared and are embarassing cowards.
The Swiftboating of Petreaus begins in 3.. 2… 1…
I think it will be crickets again. Swiftboating draws too much attention to the subject matter. Can't have that.
eventually the secretive alphabet groups will have to- allow to happen/manufacture/plan/implement another attack on u.s. soil,such as 9-11.then they can point out that they are the only ones who can protect us from the boogyman.classic politics since the beginning of time.
toxic….sadly, you may very well be correct.
Yes rev, disagreeing with Petreaus means we're all scared neo-cons… and not saying anything about Petreaus means we're all scared neo-cons…
so HUZZAH Petreaus, HUZZAH!!
So, there's nothing to worry about from Al Qaeda or the other terrorist groups. Nothing to worry about from North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons. Nothing to worry about with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Nothing to worry about from the Taliban's actions in Pakistan. There's just nothing to worry about at all.
Let's pull all the troops out of the entire world. Let's abolish the CIA and other national intelligence agencies. Shoot, let's get rid of the police department too, because, you know, there's nothing to worry about. Let's open the Mexican border. Let's have a party. It's all good. Nothing to worry about at all. Don't worry, be happy.
Except for global warming, of course. That's going to destroy the earth. Of that we should be deathly afraid.
Reasoned arguments are an endangered species here at the Blog Of Mass Destruction, where brain cells go to die.
I made no mention of worry. I made no mention of dismantling our entire security apparatus. I never once said that Islamic extremists were not dangerous.
The post is about fear….and being told to be afraid….and further having it suggested to you that fear is the appropriate response to just about every international and national event. What a bunch of whining babies. Scared bunnies trying to make others scared too.
Gingrich doesn't care about any of it. He's using fear to attack Obama. Gingrich is an assh*le. It's just so hypocritical when neither he, nor his buddies were the least bit worried about telling us to be scared, you know, when it counted. And a lot of the fear hoo-hah is about muddying the waters and taking the focus off of the torture crime syndicate that worked out of the White House for, at least, 6 years. Can't dare prosecute.
Well, if there is something to worry about, if the jihadist are dangerous, then there IS something to fear, and Gingrich is 100% correct, which makes you the assh*le, not him.
What's tortured here is your logic.
My, my.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Of course, that was a Democrat, so it can't have any meaning.
You're at a low point King. When you defend the indefensible, discredited opportunist and overall nutcase, Newt…..when he seeks to scare Americans for no good reason…..yep, that's a new low.
Well, make up your mind. There's either danger or there isn't.
Thanks for your concern, but I'm fine. Only a ninny in government wouldn't worry (fear) about all the crazies and problems in this world.
This entire idea of casting the GOP as "the politics of fear" is nothing but a Democratic tactic to demonize the opposition. Every e-mail I get from Obama calls his opponents "fearmongerers," whether the issue is health care, the stimulus package, the monster federal spending increases, whatever…..it's an insult to my intelligence, and it pisses me off that he gets away with equating opposition with fear. It's utterly dishonest and entirely political.
Well, I really think the Republicans are trying to scare people. Most likely to raise money by concocting a phoney narrative controversy over virtually anything. This particular time it's….fear. It's one of the regular phoney fund-raising scaremongering tactics of the GOP.
Then the Democrats raise money by pointing to the crazy, phoney Republican narrative and saying how bizarre the GOP has become.
Juveniles.
Like the Democrats aren't trying to scare people. Global warming, the alleged "economic catastrophe" if the stimulus package didn't pass, saying how GOP policies increase the terrorist threat….
Not to mention that the Dems number one play in their playbook is to divide people along lines of race and class (in a classless society) to foment political warfare. That is ALL about fear. The Dems have master's degrees in in victimology.
Believe the narrative that you want to believe.
Mr. King,
A classless society. I just had a conversation with a few of my fellow unemployed blue collar workers at the country club. Most of us figure to be able to buy that house in the Hamptons with the stock options we get.
A quote from John Lennon's "Workingclass Hero": "They keep you doped on religion and sex and tv, and you think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still f**king peasants as far as I can see"
frank beat me to it…and did a better job, too.
Mr. King,
Actually, I agree that both parties use fear. That's because they both choose to be bereft of ideas lest they offend their corporate sponsors. The differences between the parties continue to narrow.