Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Nostalgia And The War

Gosh! Some of the data used to predict possible Al-Q attacks was from four years ago. That must mean there's no threat whatsoever then. Hey - it's not like they would fixate on a single target for several years. Oops. The fact that future members of the Bush administration were talking about taking out Saddam prior to the 2000 election is held up as proof that it's all a huge conspiracy, but the fact Al-Q scout targets years in advance means there's no threat. L3 logic at its finest.

Mr Common Sense says that if the terrorists were monitoring a target in 2000 and they're still working on it now, then they're really serious about hitting it. But no, sanity is not in the building anymore. Check out these comments at Two Minute Hate/Don't Have Your Say:

So much hot air has been expelled concerning alleged terrorist threats on a daily basis both pre-war and post-war that credibility is now stretched to its limit. The main exponents, Blair and Bush are no longer believed by the majority of people having been exposed by public inquiries on both sides of the pond. Remember the student thesis that was advanced as a case for bombing Iraq? Now we have four year old intelligence. Whatever next? The Chinese restaurant theory again?
Kev Rafferty, Worksop, UK

10-1 Kevver can't explain exactly how Bush and Blair were 'exposed' - hey, all that fashionable posturing doesn't leave time for actual reading.

Let's get real: we know for sure that the political campaign teams include numerous political strategists. It's a sure bet that these guys would not ignore a key election issue such as the 'war on terror'. Of course, the timing of news release is critical. the danger of a terrorist attack is real but, in my opinion, is blown out of proportion and used for the exclusive benefit of G W Bush. Also, I guess that Al-Qaeda would like to see Bush re-elected. that would fuel the hatred against arrogant America in the Arab world. a peaceful and friendly America would not be that much fun for them.
Mihai, Ottawa, Canada

Ain't it grand ? The self-same people who screech about some of the data being four years old nevertheless blame it all on the BushHitler. Meanwhile, Earth people will be aware that Bush didn't take office until Jan 2001.

No, in a word. I am not worried. This is exactly as Michael Moore predicted in his award winning documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. The US will continue to raise and lower the terror alert more so in the run up to elections. This is the present Government's way of controlling the masses. We should not change our routine in the slightest.
Janet Furly, London, England

'Controlling the masses' - that's how our socialist buds think of thee and me: a big old mass of downtrodden serfs waiting for the Tinfoil Knights to come save us. They're not called Mooreons for nothing.

Still, all this high-energy lunacy does raise one important question: why would terror alerts help Bush ? After all, the self-same L3 have been claiming that Blair has 'made us a target'. How come it doesn't work that way with Bush ?

That's the thing: the Clinton Years were America's holiday from history. Eight years of turning the answerphone on, disconnecting the doorbell and wallowing in garbage. Reality bit on September 11 and the Left failed utterly to rise to the occasion. The world is at war and the L3's main contribution has been to whine and complain. The Democrats instinctively understand that no one in their right mind would trust them to defend America, hence their only hope is to cast September 11 as some kind of aberration, international terrorism as a mere breakdown in communication and Al-Q as a sort of Islamic Rotary Club. That's why the terror alerts drive them nuts, because it throws into sharp relief that they remain mired in the a world that ceased to exist three years ago.

No comments: