After 9/11 people dug up several comments that people had made prior to 9/11 where they seemed to be rooting for another Pearl Harbor so that the American people would be more supportive of an aggressive foreign policy. These comments kind of fed the early conspiracy theories that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen on purpose. I guess none of that really matters though, because Republicans keep pining for another terrorist attack to buck up American resolve for an aggressive foreign policy. There isn’t really any doubt that a significant number of Republicans would welcome another terrorist attack. Which leads to my question. Why should we trust these people to prevent terrorist attacks?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
It’s not about prevention. It’s about retribution.
The U.S. government is stuck in a reactive mode of problem solving as opposed to a proactive one.
That’s why we didn’t prevent 9/11, we attacked afterwards, instead of looking realistically at the causes to prevent them from happening.
It’s why people go hungry, and we then try to feed them, instead of preventing their destitution in the first place.
It’s why our health care policy is ‘go to the emergency room’ instead of staying healthy and preventative healthcare.
People trust the Republican party to be the better party of retribution…and I can’t say that I blame them, I just think they’re looking at things the wrong way.
Drives me absolutely f’ing nuts.
I guess I am not getting why terrorism is supposed to be a good issue for the Republicans. Any time a Republican tries to bring up this talking point, the immediate response ought to be “Where’s Osama”? Why haven’t we caught him?
It shouldn’t be, but the narrative is already in place. Democrats are weak kneed pansies when it comes to dealing with foreign threats, while Republicans are Big Strong Strapping Men who will annihilate anyone who looks at them crosswise. As in much of our political arena, the facts couldn’t be more irrelevant.
about it.
It’s a cleft stick: The need to scare people now, before the election–which is WHY the aid was saying this–versus the need to stand clear of it when it happens, which is the reason for McCain’s disavowal.
When the attack happens, you can’t have too many people remembering that your team was pumping for it.
Especially as it will (again) be false flag.
How many times can you burn down your own house for the insurance before the insurance company notices? Several times apparently, but not infinitely many.
You have to keep some plausible deniability.
For the same reason that you should trust those who do not believe in the efficacy of governmental action to efficiently operate the government…
Serious answer: There is no why, we shouldn’t trust them.
wait. that wasn’t sarcastic.
A first!
I agree. Their agenda is to keep their presence in the Middle East because of oil. The way to justify it is to scare as many voters as possible. And when people are afraid, they lose all sense of rationale. So if you were to point this out to any of their supporters, they’d say, ‘why should we?’ BECAUSE! The sky is falling and <insert any other idiotic lame reasoning>
Ingrid
I wouldn’t trust these people with running a lemonade stand. Utterly incompetent.
They are NOT incompetent. They are uncaring. They do what they want. They have been extremely competent at raiding the national treasury for their private gain.
I think McCain should fire Charlie Black. Wanting a terrorist attack is un American, Black should be arrested as an “Alien Enemy” for uttering such statements.
Back to reality..promoting death of Americans to win a Presidential elections…sounds like W.
if you take notice to news reports of late, the new phrase, and legal arrest term is: “terrorist threat”
their arresting people daily, all over the country, and this is the new phrase/legal term for saying anything that would suggest force upon another person(s)
but hell, we know the ruling party is exempt from any such action…..
maybe I should join the local RatPug party, and then I can tell someone that I will whooop their ass, and get away with it…..NAAAAAAAHHHH, I’ll just stay Independent, and take my chances ; )
Over at FDL there was a piece by Looseheadprop that the reading of the new FISA bill showed that there was no longer a threshhold of terrorist threat attached to allowing a wiretap.
amazing isn’t it, that the term is used daily in the news now…and it just started being used in the past couple of weeks….
there is more behind the curtain than the audience knows ; )
Charlie Black’s statement has it’s own arena of stupidity but the raw blunder of it reminds me of Bush’s declaration of ‘Bring ’em On’. Simply clueless.
Why indeed?
Why should we trust these people to prevent terrorist attacks?
That is indeed a serious, insightful, and crucially important question and we need to find a way to ask it of the Bush/McCain voters who don’t read the Booman Tribune.
While I agree with the thrust of Booman’s post, he lacks perspective. Of course we should be wary of the neocons. I’m sorry you have been unable to find the mountain of evidence that the neocons did 9/11.
A good place to start is the HUNDREDS of highly credentialed architects, engineers, scientists, professors, former government, intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals who call for a real investigation at patriotsquestion911.com
A good 2 minute introduction is to google “This is an orange.”
Paul Craig Roberts, former asst Treasury Secretary under Reagan, noted that the speed of collapse is all you need to know that 911 was an inside job.Since both planes hit above the 80TH floors, how can the bottom 80 floors have provided zero resistance? How could all the concrete been pulverized to dust.
Join architects and engineers for 911truth (ae911truth.org) and do something about it.