Greenwald Wrote My Essay...

...and he did it a hell of a lot better than I could.

Last night while I was keeping my mind occupied during chores, I was half listening to Hardball's segment featuring Ben Ginsberg and Richard Ben-Veniste. They were going back and forth on Shrub's decision that warrants were soooooo pre-9/11, and the usual talking points began to blend into a dull, flavorless puree of the kind that makes even a wonk's eyes and ears dull (or a wanabee wonk's like mine).

One thing, though that struck me, was a weird sort of dualism at the core of the Shrub worshippers' position--they're willing to trash consitutional government, more or less for good, because of a single attack--yes, a horrific attack, but a single attack--that occurred over four years ago. Of course, last night and pretty much every night since the shock of 9/11 they've also been braying about how "no attacks" have occurred since (conveniently ignoring both the anthrax attacks AND subsequent terrorists actions in other locations. In doing so, they reveal their inner xenophobia and ethnocentrism). There's also, for them, the VERY inconvenient fact that no terrorist attack within the borders of the United States is NOT necessarily the result of policy decisions; nor can they point to ANY specific attempt at terrorism thwarted, aside from perhaps the lunatic attempt to dismantle the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch (tellingly, the Padilla case is rarely brought up at all, and wasn't last night).

On the other hand, in Iraq, where, thanks to Shrub's meddling, there's a genuine and dreadful problem with terrorism--not to mention incipent civil war--these same securityphiles can't be bothered. Death and destruction get glossed over in favor of yet more elections (even if the elections signal disaster vis-a-vis United States policy aims). And Iraqi corpses become, as I noted yesterday, mere statistics, to be trotted out when justifying more war, but ignored when looking at policy results (ignored in the same way things like lack of electricity and plumbing are, now that these not-so-attractive but vital services are OUR responsibility).

Thinking about the contrast made me wonder what the Shrub worshippers would do if suddenly thrust into a REAL security crisis, as opposed to the fake one, manufactured for political purposes, by this government. My guess is that it'd range between cowering under the bed and haughtily demanding extra work from the hired help (most of those actually articulating Team Bush's views aren't exactly day laborers).

But again, I was thinking about this last night (and made a mental note to remember, which, surprisingly, I did)...then, this morning, as I said, Glenn Greenwald--guest posting at Hullaballo--put it together far more eloquently than I'm able to--check out the entire post, but here are some excerpts:

Fear of terrorism is what the Administration has successfully inflamed and exploited for four years in order to justify its most extreme and even illegal actions undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.

Without pause, the Administration has sought to make Americans as frightened as possible about terrorism and has used that fear to justify its actions with regard to almost every issue...

George Bush has...been fueling these flames of fear in almost every speech he’s given since September 11, 2001. Here he is in a quite typical speech delivered on October 6, 2005, transparently attempting to whip up as much fear as possible in order to bolster support for our ongoing occupation of Iraq:

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. . . . Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation."

"Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, 'We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.' And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history.

"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. . . .

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers.

Islamic terrorists here, as always, are depicted as omnipotent villains with quite attainable dreams of world domination, genocide, and the obliteration of the United States. They are trying to take over the world and murder us all. And this is not merely a threat we face. It is much more than that. It is the predominant issue facing the United States -- more important than all others. Everything pales in comparison to fighting off this danger. We face not merely a danger, but, in Bush’s words, an "unprecedented danger" -- the worst, scariest, most threatening danger ever...

It is that deeply irrational, fear-driven view of the world which has to be undermined in order to make headway in convincing Americans that this Administration is engaged in intolerable excesses and abuses of its power. The argument which needs to be made is the one that we have seen starting to arise in the blogosphere and elsewhere: that living in irrational fear of terrorists and sacrificing our liberties and all of our other national goals in their name is the approach of hysterics and cowards, not of a strong, courageous and resolute nation.

Several weeks ago, Digby wrote a widely-discussed post describing how Bush followers are driven by their all-consuming and pitifully child-like fears of terrorists, leading them to consent to any measures taken by George Bush as long as he promises to save them. And this weekend, Kos wrote a similar post, in which he contrasted the classic and previously defining American bravery of Patrick Henry with the frightened Bush followers who beg the Government to restrict their liberties in exchange for saving them from the terrorists.

If the blogospheric reaction of Bush supporters is any indication, this argument is as politically potent as it is self-evidently true. Kos’s post provoked shrieking seizures among the tough-guy, blindly loyal Bush followers -- the ones who revealingly give themselves play name like Rocket and Captain and who never tire of touting their own toughness. In response to Kos’s post, they squealed and they yelled and they called him all kinds of names – they did everything but refute the argument.

And notably, in their anger, there was none of that smug bravado or all-too-familiar attacks on the courage of Bush opponents, because with this plainly accurate depiction, they stand revealed as being driven by nothing other than limitless, irrational fear. They are scared and they want to continue to implant their extreme fear into our national policies and onto our national character...

There's a LOT more worth reading at the post itself, but I've cited plenty enough--however, I'll note that Greenwald goes on to point out something I've also noted--again, not as good, but, to both sort of paraphrase AND recall my own previous screeds, it's wasn't Saddam Hussein causing the pre-hurricane problems in New Orleans, nor was his evil visage responsible for the storm...or aftermath. Shrub can talk about terrorism's evil until he's hoarse (or until he's attacked by a cedar tree), but the REAL crises facing this country aren't the result of fanatic Islamic fundamentalist nuts--they're the result of fanatic Shrub worshipping nuts.

Team Bush has in turn completely ignored the threat of terrorism, then magnified it beyond all reason (i.e., comparisons to the Soviet Union), then wrongly equated it to thuggish but decidedly non-fundamentalist Iraq (effectively ruining what was left of the country)--and, make no mistake, this was ALL done with, first and foremost, political considerations in mind. That's right: genuine concern for national security hasn't been relegated to the back seat--I, for one, doubt they even bothered to drop it in the trunk.

As a result, we're FAR worse off, particularly in light of items desperately needing attention, like the Gulf Coast (related note: The Rude Pundit has several superb posts abut his own experience in and around NOLA. Check them out). Instead of correctly identifying the threat of terrorism in clear, rational terms, they've thrown away thousands of lives, AT LEAST $200 billion dollars--and possibly quite a bit more--on delusions. Delusions and cynical political games.

And to think about why these same shitheads impeached Bill Clinton. Good god.