Are some Conservatives Promoting Al Qaeda's "Successes"??

[Bison66]

Interesting perspective.

Why Are Conservatives So Committed To Promoting Al Qaeda’s ‘Success’?

I wrote yesterday about the spectacle of Fox News personalities Britt Hume and Bill Kristol promoting the failed Christmas attack as a “success” for Al Qaeda. Today’s conservative Al Qaeda publicist is Lurita Doan, who was forced to resign in May 2008 as head of the General Services Administration under the Bush administration — something which, given Bush’s well-known lack of enthusiasm for punishing failure, says a lot. Doan writes “Everyone keeps saying how lucky we are that the “crotch” bomber on Flight 253 was unable to ignite the explosives hidden in his underwear, but I am sorry to report that the attack was a actually a huge success. The plane was not destroyed and no lives were lost, but the larger, strategic goals of al Qaeda were certainly advanced.”

As I noted yesterday, it is true that one of the goals of terrorism is to elicit a wild over-reaction from the target government, resulting in greater publicity and a larger pool of potential recruits for the terrorists’ cause, and so any response has to be balanced against that. But the idea that “the strategic goals of al Qaeda” are better advanced by more security theater at American airports than they were by, say, inducing the United States to invade and occupy two Muslim countries and engage in a global campaign of kidnapping and torture, is just ridiculous on its face.

But this is largely beside the point, because conservatives like Kristol, Hume, and Doan aren’t genuinely (or at least primarily) interested in analyzing threats and policies to deal with them, they’re interested in promoting a specific, and politically advantageous, narrative about the nature of those threats. And apparently, the possibility of those threats serving as Al Qaeda propaganda is a price they’re willing to pay in order to achieve that political advantage.

Over-stating the strength and prominence of Al Qaeda has been a tendency of the right for years.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/01/05/why-are-conservatives-so-committed-to-promoting-al-qaedas-success/

Is there, behind the hyperbole (is it?), truth to this perspective?
 

[y04185]

No truth. 

[soflorattler]

Yes Truth.

Over-stating the strength and prominence of Al Qaeda has been a tendency of the right for years.

 

[Bison66]

Yes Truth.

Over-stating the strength and prominence of Al Qaeda has been a tendency of the right for years.

 

For sure, they did so with the Soviet Union, claiming it was a huge threat right up to its collapse.
 

[uchighlander]

Yes Truth.

Over-stating the strength and prominence of Al Qaeda has been a tendency of the right for years.

 

For sure, they did so with the Soviet Union, claiming it was a huge threat right up to its collapse.
 

And that collapse was due in a large part to our building up our defenses against the Soviet Union threat.....they tried to keep up but went broke doing so. Absolutely nothing wrong with vigilance. GO VIKINGS!!!

[Bison66]

So, I gather that you don't disagree that the USSR's capabilities were overstated, which was the comment that you replied to.

 

[soflorattler]

uc, please tell us that you're NOT a chess player...

[uchighlander]

So, I gather that you don't disagree that the USSR's capabilities were overstated, which was the comment that you replied to.

 

C'mon....next you're going to tell me the USSR didn't have the capabilites to launch an attack against the US. What is overstated....how do you quantify that? They were....and actually still are a threat. If Iran developes an ICBM with nuclear capabilities are you going to say....Oh....don't worry about them....they only have a couple of rockets. GO VIKINGS!!!

[y04185]

uch, they have no talking points.

[Bison66]

So, I gather that you don't disagree that the USSR's capabilities were overstated, which was the comment that you replied to.

 

C'mon....next you're going to tell me the USSR didn't have the capabilites to launch an attack against the US. What is overstated....how do you quantify that? They were....and actually still are a threat. If Iran developes an ICBM with nuclear capabilities are you going to say....Oh....don't worry about them....they only have a couple of rockets. GO VIKINGS!!!

highlander,

Seriously, do you think (Or read?) before you type?  

I said that the USSR's capabilities were "overstated"; I did NOT say that they were non-existent.

Jeez!

y04,

In light of your failure to respond AFTER WEEKS - despite the challenge to you to do so - to a simple question about terror trials in a thread in which you inserted yourself, YOU should be among the very last to allude to a lack of response in a day or two as an indication of an inability to respond.

s-m-h
 

[Bison66]

uc, please tell us that you're NOT a chess player...

 

[y04185]

bison, what the hell are you talking about.

[Bison66]

bison, what the hell are you talking about.

Care to be specific?

Overstating USSR capabililities?

You failure to respond to a question about terrorist trials in Fed Court?

What?

 

[uchighlander]

So, I gather that you don't disagree that the USSR's capabilities were overstated, which was the comment that you replied to.

 

C'mon....next you're going to tell me the USSR didn't have the capabilites to launch an attack against the US. What is overstated....how do you quantify that? They were....and actually still are a threat. If Iran developes an ICBM with nuclear capabilities are you going to say....Oh....don't worry about them....they only have a couple of rockets. GO VIKINGS!!!

highlander,

Seriously, do you think (Or read?) before you type?  

I said that the USSR's capabilities were "overstated"; I did NOT say that they were non-existent.

Jeez!

y04,

In light of your failure to respond AFTER WEEKS - despite the challenge to you to do so - to a simple question about terror trials in a thread in which you inserted yourself, YOU should be among the very last to allude to a lack of response in a day or two as an indication of an inability to respond.

s-m-h
 

I did respond...you must have missed it. I said try them in military courts. As far as "overstated".....the point was that conservatives are overstating Al Qaeda's capabilities.You said we had overstated the USSR's capabilities. I think you are splitting hairs. As I said....there is nothing wrong with being vigilant. GO VIKINGS!!!

[Bison66]

highlander,

My comment about not responding was directed to y04.  I should have bolded his name to make it stand out.

I had already thanked you for your response, but.................am still waiting on whether you opposed the Bush administration when it did EXACTLY what the Obama admin is doing now.

The point is that Conservatives in general and Repub elected officials HAD NO PROBLEM (that I recall them expressing) about terrorists being tried in Fed Court.  Now - ALL OF A SUDDEN - it's this huge issue for them. And they are using FEAR as a political tool; appealing to a previously non-existent concern that terrorists will be in US prisons.  There are more than 100 already in those prisons, mostly put there by the Bush admin and none have escaped, while - by the way - two (I think it is) of those tried in military tribunals were acquitted or released!!!!!

Tell me, please, why you want military trials.

I do not understand your use of "splitting hairs."

RE: the USSR, I was attempting to show a consistency in promoting fear as a political tool.   I grant that it is an opinion, but there is some evidence for it.