Just a few short years ago wasn’t terrorism supposed to be the the existential threat facing the West in the 21st century? Didn’t Dick Cheney say in 2004 “the 21st-century terrorism threat presents a new and far greater peril”
… than what?
“Today, we face a sophisticated global network of terrorists who are opposed to the values of liberty, tolerance and openness that form the basis of our societies. Their hatred and sense of grievance are not directed at any one government or nation or religion, but against all governments, nations and people that stand in their way.”
Sure seems like he was talking about al Qaeda.
Today religious leaders, right-wing blowhards, and Republicans the like are saying entirely different things.
Neal Boortz is arguing, “ObamaCare will do more damage than a successful terrorist bombing of an airliner … and kill more people as well.”
Allen Quist, a Republican congressional candidate going up against Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN), has made a serious accusation:
“It’s because I, like you, have seen that our country is being destroyed. I mean, this is — every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom. This is our fight. And this is our time. This is it. Terrorism, yes — but that’s not the big battle. The big battle is in D.C., with the radicals. They aren’t liberals, they’re radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz — they’re not liberals, they’re radicals. They are destroying our country. And people all over are figuring that out.”
Rep. Walz, the one Quist is describing as a radical enemy of the U.S. and a more serious threat than al Qaeda, is a 24-year veteran of the National Guard, retiring as a command sergeant major and the highest ranking enlisted soldier in southern Minnesota. But he is worst that al Qaeda?
Rep. Virginia Foxx’s (R-N.C.) looked pretty ridiculous in November when she said Americans have “more to fear” from health care reform than “from any terrorist right now in any country.”
Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) said that the health care debate is more consequential than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
According to Sen. Jim DeMint, a right-wing Republican from South Carolina protecting the American public from terrorism is a priority, but for DeMint, preventing government workers from organizing is a much higher priority.
And finally according to religious right leader Pat Robertson who argued on ABC’s This Week that the “runaway” federal judiciary constitutes the gravest threat to American life. Robertson says the “tyranny” of the federal judiciary is a bigger threat to America than the Nazis during World War II and the Civil War and poses a “more serious [threat] than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,” referring to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in which nearly 3,000 people were killed.
Do Republicans take terrorism seriously, or do they merely use it as a political tool to attack their enemies — and NOT a set of policy pronouncements?
After all it was an excuse to attack Iraq.
Do we assume that Republicans somehow care if terrorists attack America, especially if that means they get to attack Obama as well? If a terrorist attack occurs under a Republican president it’s the fault of the last Democrat to hold office. If a THWARTED attack occurs under a Democrat it’s because the administration didn’t take “the terrorist threat seriously!”
But, NOTHING could possibly qualify as “taking the terrorist threat seriously” as far as Republicans are concerned — except for Obama to resign and appoint Dick Cheney president.
Recent Comments