The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins
Its times like these I'm almost regretful that I wrote my thesis on 1984. It would be nice to not have that frame of reference when looking at the newspeak blather that comes out of Bush and Co's mouths.
Yep, if we elect a democrat they'll attack us all with anthrax and you know what? It will be our own damn fault for not loving Big Brother and welcoming him back into the Oval Office. And last night, Rumsfeld tells us that we can't pull out of Iraq (despite the grim 1000 mark of US military dead in the Iraq war) because it would derail the entire operation. "The terrorists," he says "know they are very close to losing."
Bush is so frighteningly pleased to be the Big Brother, too- "I'm a War President, no wait, a PEACE president. Because WAR IS PEACE."
And lest we forget, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
How did Orwell see this one coming?
And the way Cheney talks in the above-linked article, one just wonders how much control he has over whether or not we are attacked. Call me paranoid, but he stands to lose too much if we are never attacked again. It seems almost like less of a scare tactic or a threat and more of a promise.
Safety and threat are not real things, no matter how much this administration would like us to think so. Safety is only percieved when something does NOT happen, threat only when something does. I believe that attack attempts will be made. Not only because we have alienated our allies and have further aggravated the Arab world- but because as 9/11 proved, we can't ever be 100 per cent safe. These people dedicate their lives to hurting the United States and all it stands for. They spend years planning and strategizing and making sure they know our every vulnerability. It is impossible to say that this threat is stronger now or that it will strengthen if we don't re-elect Bush. Threat can't be quantified unless some event comes of it. You can't just say that we are at a yellow threat level or an orange threat level- it means nothing. Threat is a question that is only answered when something happens.
Which is why a war on Terror is somewhat like a war on hate itself. It is unwinnable. The best we can do is work toward a diminishment of terror activity. But it has become clear to me that the administration is not truly interested in curbing terror acts.
If the administration was actually serious about winning a war on Terror rather than simply keeping an entire population afraid and compliant, they would have stepped up to the plate in Russia this week, rather than weakly advising that they meet on some political agreement through peace talks. I like the Russian reply:
"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" the Guardian quoted Putin as saying sarcastically.
"You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers?"
If this administration were serious about winning a war on terror, we would be strengthening our ties to the leaders of extremist nations, strengthening their own reactions to internal terror cells and creating task forces for each of these nations to help in a global war on terror, rather than taking a unilateral, militaristic approach. But I think it has become abundantly clear that this is not, in fact, a war on terror. It is a war on dissent. On freedom (being that in writing this I am nervous about who will read it). And now, even on the democratic process.