Terrorism: Is it possible?

Actually, it's already happened.

The latest non-sense argument goes something like this. [Please bear with me.]

1. Because terrorists like John Kerry, that's bad for the country.

2. Terrorists are going to take advantage of Kerry's weakness.

3. Terrorists will strike if Kerry is elected.

4. Kerry is evil.

5. If Kerry wins the election, this will bring more terrorism.

Here's the problem with the above argument:

A. Presupposes that "the future possible consequences" are related to only bad things;

B. Implies that "the future hypothetical conditions are more bad, risky than under another leader";

C. Implies that the terrorists like Kerry, so they will do bad things to those they like;

D. Shifts attention from "what has already happened" [by way of terrorism], and focues on a hypothetical future evevent;

F. Implies and presumes weaknees;

G. The enemy does not want peace, or wants an outcome that is outside the real of reason.

Not advocating negotating; merely that "if we solve what is addressing/driving their attacks" that is part of the sotuion. [9-11 commission found this]

Assumptions above fail because it implies that person A is better in dealing with a sitation than person B. Let us recall that "the reason" Bush claims he is "commander ing chief" is because he failed prior to 9-11; and lied in order to justify war. Bush's leadership qualities are doubtful; doing what is a requirement [defending America] is not leadership, it is simply doing what is obvious. It is ridiculous to compare Bush to Churchill; Churchill fought fascism, Bush is a fascist.

The explanations for 'why there is this dual paradox of Quantum realities" gets explained away far too easily with "they're crazy".

The underlying presumption behind the entire argument allows the government to fail; but then shift the responsibilty for the government failure on the population. [Accountability]

The assumption not proven is that "the enemy wants something, and when they get it, they'll reject it."

Cheney can argue all he wants about "what might happen" under Kerry; the reality is he's shifting attention from what has ~already~ happened under ~Bush~.

HEre's the news [Vice] President-Cheney: Terrorism has already struck under Bush. Thus to argue "if Kerry wins, that might bring terrorism" misses the point: If they strike ~again~, we'll have no change.

The terrorists have ~already~ struck; what ~may~ happen "under Kerry" has nothing to do with "what responsibilty has the ~current~ President taken for what was ~not~ done prior to 9-11? Answer: Nothing.

Yet, we are to believe "A President who fails to take responsibility today" is somehow more likely to fix problems in the future. Unfortunately, the record-legacy of domestic security is poor under Bush: There's no training funding available for first responders. Further, there's no credible plan to allocate funding for Iraq's domestic redevelopment; alot of money has been allocated, but not actually spent. That in no way suggests progress but illusions.

Quantum Foreign Policy: Two states of reality at once

The above line of argument also suffers from a major disconnect. On one hand some argue that "Kerry is evil" and "that's why the terrorists want him"; yet at teh same time, they would ask us to also accept the opposite, "That the terrorists want Kerry" and "they plan to commit more terrorism under him." Let's consider the contrast. Why would terrorists attack a candidate "that they like"; or, put another way, if Kerry is favorable what reason would the terrorists have to commit terror?

Its ridiciulous to argue "Osama wants KErry so that he can commit terror"; he could already do this now, but Bush isn't taking responsibilty for "not stoppoing Osama from planning. Kerry's future status ["in or out of the White House"] has no relationship to whether Osama has or has not currently planned something today.

One school of thought is that "the terrorists like Kerry because they'll commit terror; the other school suggests, "the terrorists like Bush because when Bush responds, this will fueld more terrorists."

If we are to accept the above contrast as valid, then we'd have to assume that the terrorists are going to commit terror regardless; so "who is in the White House" is unrelated to whether the terrorists plan something or not.

Selective time focus

It is also inadequately to argue "look at the legacy under Bush ~after~ 9-11 -- there have been no attacks." Brilliant. This simply ignores the "bad stuff" and focuses only on the "good things." Yet, let's look at the real picture.

To suggest "there have been no attacks" misses the fact that 1,000 military personnel are dead in Iraq. Indeed, the attacks have not occurred in the United States by ~terrorists~, but there have been attacks on civil liberties agaomst the population. What the terrorists were not able to do themselves, this government has done: Destroy the foundation for the constitution.

The above arguments also presuppose that Kerry is weak; and any action Bush takes, however unlawful, is strong, and therefore good. This assumes that forces is more important that the rule of law; the momentum of this thinking was supposedly brought to light in Abu Ghraib.

The flawed assumption is that force can and should be arbitrarily wielded, however "good" the cause might be presupposed to occur, regardless the method or compliance with statutes. Such momentum, when unchecked, yields Rawanda and the Holocaust. I see no evidence this is stopping, merely accelerating.

How can someone who is "evil" be also weak? If they were truly "weak" the fact that they were evil is irrelevant. Thus if Kerry is weak, then whether Kerry is evil should be of no concern to Kerry's opposition; rather, the only reason the opposition might be concerned with whether Kerry was "evil or not" is whether Kerry chooses to put pressure on the House Judiciary Committee to impeach public officials in Congress and the Judicial branch for taking actions that would impede lawful investigations, or fail to preserve the constittuion.

The arguments also presuppose that all conditions driving the terrorism are to be ignored; and that anything that the terrorists say "as their reason for action" has no merit. In short, this is to say "although we've ignored you in the past and you feel you need to increase the pressure with terrorism, the fact that you've used terrorism now makes all teh conditions non-existent; so we deny reality in order to justify fighting and opposing an enemy."

This is not solving the problem; it is merely addressing the symptom, a problem which the 9-11 commission agreed needed to be looked at in terms of a broad spectrum of causal factors. To truly win "this war" [whatever it is this week], one cannot simply fight against terrorism, but the "bad stuff in society" that is driving the hopelessnes must also be brought into consideration.

Indeed, there is the argument that "we cannot negotate with terrorists". Fine; the President now contradicts himself when he then says in re Iran, that we can negotiate and time is needed. The President has yet to explain why "there was no time" with Iraq, but now there ~is~ time with Iran.

We simply have more of the same non-sense that we saw prior to the invasion of Iraq: Ridiculous arguments about "what may or may not be happening" without placing responsibility squarely on those who are failing, lying, and misleading the public into unlawful wars abroad.

We saw before Iraq how high the non0sense will rise. We now see as we are in Iraq, that non-sense arguments need to be discarded, not used as the foundatio to embark on voyages into the land of greater absurdity and denial.

That we have used foolish debates prior to invading Iraq is no basis to continue to rely on foolishness and absurdity going forward. Security is not sustainable when the world sees we justify unlawful actions to preserve that which is less defendable: A culture that places greater value on security that its own constitution or the rule of law. We are approaching the extreme: More force used to silence those who now state the obvious.

Alas, that is the voyage we are asked to embark with Bush. WHo pays, how much money are we willing to spend, and how many violations of the law are we willing to ignore before we say, "No more."

Political spectrum

We crossed the line long ago; and those who say, "No more" are now labeled "lefties." The problem with that argument is that if a right wing conservative is labeled a "leftie", the only way they could be "left" of anything is if the accuser is right of them, or a fascist.

We're in real trouble when the most radical right wing conservatives are labeled by fascists "lefties" and "to be quiet" about the lawlessness and ridiculousness at the heart of this White House.

Right wing conservatives who truly respect the constittuion and the nation's security better speak out, before the fascists throw them in prison. Wait, they already did that in New York City, Guantanmo on the Hudson.

Conside the objective of linking "Kerry and terrorism"-- it is a diversionary tactics with one goal: To shift attention because they are on the defensive:

Shift attention from Bush'f ailrues, problems, and ineffectivenss

Foc on the "reasons" to ignore/not believe the oppoentn.

Explain away-insultat teh PRisesd from allegations of war crimes or impeachable offesnses

Defer after the elction "ar crimes" and then after the election say, "You should have taken care of that before the election."

Notice that the "methds to achieve safety" are at odds with the constitution

The war was lauched illegatlly, fabricated evidence, inadequately resources for post-war IRaq.

Stickers here: