What is the War on Terror, and A Moment With Fox
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, on the Fox Channel ("Your World," with Neil Cavuto):
Actually, that is precisly what it is, "connected" or disconnected ( as both are applicable).
Yet the incorrect way that Delay characterizes this has become the predominant characterization by the far right, and to some extent by the media, as well.
This does not mean that the danger posed by sociologically psychotic international, sovereignless terrorist groups that try to will things their way by murdering innocents, is not grave. Particularly in an era of increasing proliferation of WMD biological agents and fissile materials.
What it does mean is that one of the reason we have not been effective in lessening (let alone eradicating) this threat, is that we don't even correctly recognize or characterize what it is.
The problem is that many believe that to underscore its "severity," they have to view it this way. Thus, step one out of the gate is a misassessment, making it increasingly likely that the assessments that flow from it, will be similarly incorrect.
Another problem is that calling it this incorrectly mischaracterizes it to the rest of the world. Instead of marginalizing such radicalism and keeping it correctly on the fringes (lessening recruitment, building world opinion favorably, and promoting cooperation), it renders it far more mainstream than it really is.
For example, immediately before this statement, Delay was illustrating how not enough Americans (and in particular, not enough democrats) view the response of Isreal to the unprovoked Hezbollah kidnapping as appropriate. It is the opinion of this blog that Israel, given the constant threat that is has operated under, has the right to do whatever is necessary to eradicate Hezbollah north of its borders. But the issue of what is the most effective long term response remains an open question.
Whether its strategy is correct or incorrect, it has managed to turn a good portion of the world against Israel rather than against Hezbolllah. Yet Hezbollah is not Lebanon, is in effect holding Lebanon hostage as well as the Israel soldiers that provided the "spark" to start this, is appparently committed to the destruction of another state (and not just its government therein) and in many ways is operating like a terrorist organization.
By expanding the idea of what the war on terror is, merely because we in many ways, and perhaps correctly, view Hezbollah as a terrorist groups, this again only gives more world credibility to those who would seek to do us harm.
It is even more reason to not call it a war at all. This would avoid even the appearance of having to draw unnecessary distinctions between various extreme political, pseudo terrorist, and terrorist organizations. More importantly, it would allow us to focus whole heartedly on what we need to focus on. Securing America while protecting its founding liberties, and eradicating terrorists bent against us. The most counterproductive thing that can be done is to turn such "terrorism" into a larger and more mainstream thing that it is.
The end result of such a persistent path, of course, would be making it a broader socio religious struggle. It is not a battle of Muslims versus Christians, which would then make us no smarter than the seemingly insane factions in Iraq trying to kill each other right now seemingly only because of group identity. And we come from a two hundred year basis of the greatest democracy on Earth, to understate the contrast. But making it a larger socio religious struggle in essence removes the fringe terrorist element from it; also tremendously counterproductive to our efforts to mitigate and eradicate so called terrorist activity.
Yet it would seem as if a few -- and it is very few -- but like most zealots with a predominant voice, want to turn it into this. Similarly, comparisons to WWII, or to the new WWIII, are equally counterproductive, if not, in the long run, wholly and foolishly destructive.
Being strong on terrorism is not talking it into a broader thing than it is. That is called being foolish, not to mention thumping one's chest with a suit and tie on from the cush offices of a media or political center somewhere in America. Being strong on terrorism means effectively, and with focus, putting our best energies and efforts into dealing intelligently and forcefully with the issue. There is a big difference between that, and all the rhetoric that we constantly seem to hearing.
update: Balancing out Fox nicely, Anne Coulter is on this same show, along with Delay. That is, a far right wing representative, Delay, "balanced" out by a far right wing extremist, Coulter.
Coulter proceeds to twist almost every fact, and then states, with respect to Iraq, and quite disparagingly, "well, what war would they (those that don't agree with her, which Coulter narrowly calls "democrats") fight?"
Perhaps a war that was in our interests, is the answer. With respect to terrorists, perhaps a "war" against the terrorists themselves. Which Iraq had no more to do with than dozens of other states prior to military intervention therein in March of 2003. Additionally, a "war" against the terrorists themselves, given the nature and size of sovereign terrorist groups, such actions would more correctly be characterized as a series of covert actions, unless another government actually supports and assists and gives complete sanctuary to terrorist groups, as the Taliban in Afghanistan did.)
update 2: Sean Hannity comes on next, a few moments later, with former House Republican speaker Newt Gingrich.
It seems hard for Hannity to speak without distorting the facts. He goes through a long hypothetical, about how the arrests in England today of the suspected terrorists illustrates that democrats (and many republicans, he conveniently leaves out) are wrong with regard to every charge that they have leveled against him. Particularly that he "misled" America. But the problem is, the issues with this adminstration have nothing to do with him "misleading America" on the general risks from terrorism, and in fact none of the long litany Hannity cited has anything to do with it.
Listening to the next statement by Hannity, even more contorted, it is impossible to watch this channel, if one does not get most of their news elsewhere and is otherwise reasonably well informed, without deciding to vote for the party this station clearly exists to support. It is literally non stop.
I used to believe that Hannity was really a Mussolinni type individual. I now realize what I had forgotten (and used to know when I watched that station on occasion). He is just a profoundly wrong individual, who has a great way with words and a great way of communicating, who is clearly very earnest and believes what he says, but simply on partisan issues can't seem to view anything objectively. In fact, rarely does five minutes go by without Hannity grotesquely distorting some fact or issue, or simply getting it flat out backwards. It is pervasive, and consistent.
update 3: Hannity misstates the NSA issue by stating that we can't even intercept calls from known terrorists (such a blatant mischaracterization of the issue that a 3d grader, were partisan politics taken out of this, would be awarded an "F" for this question on an exam), as a way of "asking" Republican Governor Mitt Romney a loaded question. (Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetss, providing balance, as the most liberal of the four guests during this time period. Except for Romney is a republican.)
Romney states: "The number one liberty is the right to stay alive."
Ben Franklin, paraphrased "Those who would chose security over libery deserve, and will probably get, neither."
Again, the issue is not whether we need to do more or less in combatting terrorism. (We need to do more.) The issue is using it as an excuse to abandon the basic founding and constitutional principles of America, which many republicans take great issue with as well. (Just not ever on Fox. Conveniently.)
update 4: Guest number five appears. More balance. Former Republican major and staunch conservative Rudy Guiliani.
update 5: Hannity: "We are watching the rise of Nazism before our eyes," in reference to soverignless terrorists. Yet this is a fringe fanatical element with no borders or sovereign support, unless we sucessfully and counterproductively manage to turn it into something bigger that it is, and certainly that in the interests of world peace, that it needs to be. It is also a particularly ironic statement by Hannity, given that it was Hitler himself who used "defense of the realm" as an excuse to violate the rule of law, and that most of the litany of "claims" against Bush that Hannity went through just mere minutes earlier, had to do with abdicating the rule of law in "defense" of the realm.
update 6: Show "Sidekick" Alan Colmes, throughout all of this, is a joke. What he says are blatantly obvious statements that almost everybody knows. These, thrown in every once in a while from an otherwise largely dormant Colmes, provide the "appearance" of balance, that give Hannity and assorted guests opportunities to undermine those statements (to which Colmes almost never responds.)
update 7: Rudy Guiliani "We made this mistake in the 30's, thinking we could negotiate with these people, and we are making it again. " Who is he referring to that wants to negotiate? And negotiate with who? Is he confusing the Hezbollah issue? That's Israel's battle, we're not fighting it. And, unfortunately, Israel, being in a difficult position, has rallied world opinion agains them. Again, the irony of this comment is not lost.
Guiliani: With respect to Joe Lieberman: "I don't know why his political party won't allow him that kind of political flexibility." It's not his party, it's called democracy. And it was the people of Connecticut. A slightly different perspective.
This station would be an insult to jouralism, if it was journalism. It's not, which makes it all the more pernicious, since it nevertheless poses as a "news" source for politics and policy.
This isn't just a war of disconnected events by small groups of fanatics, this is a real war.
Actually, that is precisly what it is, "connected" or disconnected ( as both are applicable).
Yet the incorrect way that Delay characterizes this has become the predominant characterization by the far right, and to some extent by the media, as well.
This does not mean that the danger posed by sociologically psychotic international, sovereignless terrorist groups that try to will things their way by murdering innocents, is not grave. Particularly in an era of increasing proliferation of WMD biological agents and fissile materials.
What it does mean is that one of the reason we have not been effective in lessening (let alone eradicating) this threat, is that we don't even correctly recognize or characterize what it is.
The problem is that many believe that to underscore its "severity," they have to view it this way. Thus, step one out of the gate is a misassessment, making it increasingly likely that the assessments that flow from it, will be similarly incorrect.
Another problem is that calling it this incorrectly mischaracterizes it to the rest of the world. Instead of marginalizing such radicalism and keeping it correctly on the fringes (lessening recruitment, building world opinion favorably, and promoting cooperation), it renders it far more mainstream than it really is.
For example, immediately before this statement, Delay was illustrating how not enough Americans (and in particular, not enough democrats) view the response of Isreal to the unprovoked Hezbollah kidnapping as appropriate. It is the opinion of this blog that Israel, given the constant threat that is has operated under, has the right to do whatever is necessary to eradicate Hezbollah north of its borders. But the issue of what is the most effective long term response remains an open question.
Whether its strategy is correct or incorrect, it has managed to turn a good portion of the world against Israel rather than against Hezbolllah. Yet Hezbollah is not Lebanon, is in effect holding Lebanon hostage as well as the Israel soldiers that provided the "spark" to start this, is appparently committed to the destruction of another state (and not just its government therein) and in many ways is operating like a terrorist organization.
By expanding the idea of what the war on terror is, merely because we in many ways, and perhaps correctly, view Hezbollah as a terrorist groups, this again only gives more world credibility to those who would seek to do us harm.
It is even more reason to not call it a war at all. This would avoid even the appearance of having to draw unnecessary distinctions between various extreme political, pseudo terrorist, and terrorist organizations. More importantly, it would allow us to focus whole heartedly on what we need to focus on. Securing America while protecting its founding liberties, and eradicating terrorists bent against us. The most counterproductive thing that can be done is to turn such "terrorism" into a larger and more mainstream thing that it is.
The end result of such a persistent path, of course, would be making it a broader socio religious struggle. It is not a battle of Muslims versus Christians, which would then make us no smarter than the seemingly insane factions in Iraq trying to kill each other right now seemingly only because of group identity. And we come from a two hundred year basis of the greatest democracy on Earth, to understate the contrast. But making it a larger socio religious struggle in essence removes the fringe terrorist element from it; also tremendously counterproductive to our efforts to mitigate and eradicate so called terrorist activity.
Yet it would seem as if a few -- and it is very few -- but like most zealots with a predominant voice, want to turn it into this. Similarly, comparisons to WWII, or to the new WWIII, are equally counterproductive, if not, in the long run, wholly and foolishly destructive.
Being strong on terrorism is not talking it into a broader thing than it is. That is called being foolish, not to mention thumping one's chest with a suit and tie on from the cush offices of a media or political center somewhere in America. Being strong on terrorism means effectively, and with focus, putting our best energies and efforts into dealing intelligently and forcefully with the issue. There is a big difference between that, and all the rhetoric that we constantly seem to hearing.
update: Balancing out Fox nicely, Anne Coulter is on this same show, along with Delay. That is, a far right wing representative, Delay, "balanced" out by a far right wing extremist, Coulter.
Coulter proceeds to twist almost every fact, and then states, with respect to Iraq, and quite disparagingly, "well, what war would they (those that don't agree with her, which Coulter narrowly calls "democrats") fight?"
Perhaps a war that was in our interests, is the answer. With respect to terrorists, perhaps a "war" against the terrorists themselves. Which Iraq had no more to do with than dozens of other states prior to military intervention therein in March of 2003. Additionally, a "war" against the terrorists themselves, given the nature and size of sovereign terrorist groups, such actions would more correctly be characterized as a series of covert actions, unless another government actually supports and assists and gives complete sanctuary to terrorist groups, as the Taliban in Afghanistan did.)
update 2: Sean Hannity comes on next, a few moments later, with former House Republican speaker Newt Gingrich.
It seems hard for Hannity to speak without distorting the facts. He goes through a long hypothetical, about how the arrests in England today of the suspected terrorists illustrates that democrats (and many republicans, he conveniently leaves out) are wrong with regard to every charge that they have leveled against him. Particularly that he "misled" America. But the problem is, the issues with this adminstration have nothing to do with him "misleading America" on the general risks from terrorism, and in fact none of the long litany Hannity cited has anything to do with it.
Listening to the next statement by Hannity, even more contorted, it is impossible to watch this channel, if one does not get most of their news elsewhere and is otherwise reasonably well informed, without deciding to vote for the party this station clearly exists to support. It is literally non stop.
I used to believe that Hannity was really a Mussolinni type individual. I now realize what I had forgotten (and used to know when I watched that station on occasion). He is just a profoundly wrong individual, who has a great way with words and a great way of communicating, who is clearly very earnest and believes what he says, but simply on partisan issues can't seem to view anything objectively. In fact, rarely does five minutes go by without Hannity grotesquely distorting some fact or issue, or simply getting it flat out backwards. It is pervasive, and consistent.
update 3: Hannity misstates the NSA issue by stating that we can't even intercept calls from known terrorists (such a blatant mischaracterization of the issue that a 3d grader, were partisan politics taken out of this, would be awarded an "F" for this question on an exam), as a way of "asking" Republican Governor Mitt Romney a loaded question. (Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetss, providing balance, as the most liberal of the four guests during this time period. Except for Romney is a republican.)
Romney states: "The number one liberty is the right to stay alive."
Ben Franklin, paraphrased "Those who would chose security over libery deserve, and will probably get, neither."
Again, the issue is not whether we need to do more or less in combatting terrorism. (We need to do more.) The issue is using it as an excuse to abandon the basic founding and constitutional principles of America, which many republicans take great issue with as well. (Just not ever on Fox. Conveniently.)
update 4: Guest number five appears. More balance. Former Republican major and staunch conservative Rudy Guiliani.
update 5: Hannity: "We are watching the rise of Nazism before our eyes," in reference to soverignless terrorists. Yet this is a fringe fanatical element with no borders or sovereign support, unless we sucessfully and counterproductively manage to turn it into something bigger that it is, and certainly that in the interests of world peace, that it needs to be. It is also a particularly ironic statement by Hannity, given that it was Hitler himself who used "defense of the realm" as an excuse to violate the rule of law, and that most of the litany of "claims" against Bush that Hannity went through just mere minutes earlier, had to do with abdicating the rule of law in "defense" of the realm.
update 6: Show "Sidekick" Alan Colmes, throughout all of this, is a joke. What he says are blatantly obvious statements that almost everybody knows. These, thrown in every once in a while from an otherwise largely dormant Colmes, provide the "appearance" of balance, that give Hannity and assorted guests opportunities to undermine those statements (to which Colmes almost never responds.)
update 7: Rudy Guiliani "We made this mistake in the 30's, thinking we could negotiate with these people, and we are making it again. " Who is he referring to that wants to negotiate? And negotiate with who? Is he confusing the Hezbollah issue? That's Israel's battle, we're not fighting it. And, unfortunately, Israel, being in a difficult position, has rallied world opinion agains them. Again, the irony of this comment is not lost.
Guiliani: With respect to Joe Lieberman: "I don't know why his political party won't allow him that kind of political flexibility." It's not his party, it's called democracy. And it was the people of Connecticut. A slightly different perspective.
This station would be an insult to jouralism, if it was journalism. It's not, which makes it all the more pernicious, since it nevertheless poses as a "news" source for politics and policy.
3 Comments:
fox does this all the time.
but they do have democratic guest on there sometimes. but they usually suck.
I agree with you, but I also think that democrats have not focused on the war on terrorism issues enough. they are policy wise, but in their speeches and statement they seem to think everybody knows this, so they refute a republican position and then don't clarify.
If I did not spend a lot of time following the news with what I did, I would not vote democratic on the national security issue just because of the spin I hear from the republicans and democrats both.
I agree.
I think the republican spin is pretty inaccurate, but without good news analysis, it would be hard for a lot of people to know this.
Post a Comment
<< Home