All it will take: one new "9./11" under a Dem. president to end democracy

[Selwynn]

If John Kerry does not get as many votes as George W. Bush (or if 59,000 minority voters are illegitimately stripped from their voting rights, or Deibold allows paperless electronic voting to "deliver Ohio's votes to Bush" as its President and CEO promised) then he will lose.

But more interesting is the fact that if John Kerry somehow beats the odds and manages to win the Presidency, all it will take is one new "9/11" - a new major terrorist attack on US soil under a sitting Democratic president - to end any effectiveness of his administration, and end any serious claim to democracy in this country. Here's how that will happen:

One brilliant and sinister success of the Rove/Cheney administration of the last four years, is to create a no-win scenario for democrats. If another terrorist attack happened on Republican watch,
Democrats would do what they always do - fall in line in "support" of the "wartime" president. And Republicans would make sure that anyone who dared to criticize our leadership for policies that make terror more - not less - likely would be branded a traitor.

Admittedly, the morning of September 11, 2001 would not have been the time for Democrats - or any concerned citizen - to launch in to fully critical language of our leadership while the nation mourned. But my friends, the reason we are in the disastrous mess we are in today, is because the American people and our representatives in Congress utterly failed to do their duties in asking tough and critical questions about how our defense was handled, how our intelligence was used, and whether or not our actions in the world best serve the cause of security, let alone justice.

But under a Republican president, Americans daring to raise a critical eye toward political masters are branded terrorists and traitors. And lest that sounds too extreme, remember that this is exactly what happened to many who raise questions about 9/11 and our response to it following those attacks. Their patriotism was questioned, their loyalty was challenged, their honor was denied.

So somehow Republicans make terrorist violence against us turn into greater support for them. Now, whether you agree with that or no, consider this:

The moment there is another terrorist attack on the US - and there will be - the republicans (unlike the democrats in 2001) will waste no time immediately saying "we told you so!" and blaming the democratic president for weak/failed policy, etc. And you know what? Where the public was openly hostile to critics of US policy under a Republican president, the public will quickly believe attackers under a Democratic president. And what will be so heartbreaking to those of us with functioning hearts and active minds is the fact that Republicans won't have a shred of facts nor any legitimacy to any of the criticisms they will make - which is the usual modus operandum.

The right is so good at propaganda and indoctrination and clandestine manipulation of the public. We can never compete with that - mainly because so many democrats have things like integrity or conscience and we don't do the whole fascist-state "indoctrination of the masses" thing that well. Our greatest trait is paradoxically our greatest weakness. If a major terrorist attack happens under Kerry's administration, he will not have a second term, and democrats will not have the white house back for years to come. It won't be Kerry's fault, but that's exactly what will happen.

Where a republican can get all kinds of support during a tragedy like that, a democrat will get nothing but criticism. The result will be his presidency will be undercut, he will lose a re-election bid, and the next time a major terrorist attack happens under a new Republican President martial law will be declared, and conservative neo-fascists will reign over Pax-americana. Harsh and extreme? Four years ago I would have thought a lot of things were ridiculous and impossible. Now I know better.

[LeftHander]

1. Thats why we need put the neocons away

for their (PNAC) complicit actions in creating a new "pearl harbor".

If not then the blow hard neocon GOPS will continue to bully American politics.

[Selwynn]

4. Do you seriously believe this will happen?

No, I think not. Which means that the future outlook of democracy is not looking good.

[AG78]

7. Put them where?

Even if they happen to lose the election, they'll all go back to their Board of Director, CEO, or Think Tank jobs.

These people are still around from the 80's. Ever notice they never talk about history before 1990? There are two reason for that. First, some of these people think history ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, and today is some kind of new thread to history. Second, they can't, because many of them are so ingrained in some of the awful domestic and international policies from that decade, that they have to ignore it. Not that the media ever asks them about it anyway.

They're never going away. They didn't start this movement of their's decades ago because they had nothing better to do.

[Mechatanketra]

8. You've hit the elephant (pun intended) in the room.

Put them where, indeed.

Remove the familiar political labels, and you are left with a clear collusion effort trading between millions of dollars that engages in provably illegal actions resulting in widespread monetary losses, injuries, and even deaths.

A large chunk of the PNAC crowd et al. don't just need to be "sent home packing". They need to be put in jail. Not because they're enemies of the incoming administration, but because they are criminals, by the plain existing language of the law. The only reason why they have any veneer of legitimacy at all is because so many of them have a hand in the gears of the very criminal justice system that would be required to deal with them.

[Search Party]

2. You are right on the money, Selwynn

our inability to see all things as "black & white" always hurts us politically.

But I wouldn't have it any other way, nor can I.

[Selwynn]

3. I edited to add a bit more to my analysis.

[YIMA]

5. I agree 100%

You've hit upon something that many progressives don't want to deal with, and the lack of responses to this post is evidence of that.

When -- not if -- when we are attacked again, Kerry will either react the way the neo-cons want him to react or they will destroy him. Likely they'll be out to destroy him anyway as they are laying the groundwork now even if he is elected. Either way after the attack, we'll either respond to it exactly the way * would have or they'll, as you put it, "blame the democratic president for weak/failed policy, etc." which will put him on the defensive with the intention of prompting him to act as they wish. And more than likely, the people will demand a swift retaliation. Shoot now, ask questions later. Under both scenarios, the neo-cons get their way.

[Selwynn]

6. I agree - I think this is the most unaddressed reality today.