Fascists is the perfect word for them because people understand that
it's horrible, but they haven't the least clue what it means.

......................................................................
........................................

They can call every Muslim from Mecca to Manhattan an Islamo-fascist,
and anyone trying to correct them only looks like a pedant.

......................................................................
..............................................

Quite simply, Iraq alone is the largest single blunder this nation has
made - ever.

......................................................................
.................................................

The War on Terror is a wholly-owned creation of the right.

......................................................................
..............................................

Republicans are going to pound the podium 24/7 from now till election
day while screaming about the coming apocalypse.

They're going to embrace the War on Terror and hug it like a bloody
teddy bear.

......................................................................
.............................................

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/9/155027/0374

09/09/2006

Democrats Must Stop Being Appeasers

By Devilstower


The word first appeared in the mealy mouths of the right wing venom
patrol.

Bill and Rush and Anne tried out "traitors," and made a go at just
directly calling Democrats "terrorists," but the word that survived
the focus groups and test polling was "appeasers."

Stamped with Rovian approval, that word next began to pass through the
lips of men like little Ricky Santorum and hiss from the lipless beak
of ***** Cheney.

Another few weeks, and even supposedly moderate senators were using
this term to refer to their "respected colleagues."

Finally, with the ice broken, Bush rolled out the word as the central
focus of the Republican attempt to turn around their poll numbers this
election season.

Democrats are appeasers.

They're right, we are appeasers.

But it's not the terrorists we need to stop appeasing, it's the
Republicans.



The Republican Plan for Election 2006


Here's your big October surprise for this season:

there won't be any October surprise.

Oh, patrols in Afghanistan might rope in another dozen or so Al Qaeda
#2's.

They might even unearth the bones of Osama.

The "government of Iraq" might launch a program to get all their
fingers dyed purple.

None of that should come as a surprise at all, because Republicans
have already announced their plan for November.

It comes down to just two words: fascists and appeasers.

By using the word fascists, the Republicans mean to raise the stakes.

Newt Gingrich talked about recasting the War on Terror as "World War
III" and complained when he couldn't catch the ear of the
administration, but the deafness they displayed wasn't a sign of
disagreement with Newt, it was just signal that they had already
incorporated his message -- and then some.

They've elevated the War on Terror above all previous wars.

It's a "clash of civilizations," the ultimate showdown between the
forces of light and darkness.

Apocalypse Plus.

Fascist is simply the worst, most emotionally resonate word they could
think of and not have to pay their own FCC censors every time they
talk.

The Republicans are absolutely committed to emphasizing the threat
presented by "Islamo-fascists," painting them as a hovering terror
that threatens to swoop down on children at night.

A boogeyman for all occasions combining the worst aspects of Hitler,
Attila the Hun, and tooth decay.

In doing so, they hope to sweep the losses of Iraq under the rug.

In effect, they want to trivialize that conflict as just the opening
to the great battle to come.

Three thousand dead Americans?

Bah, that's nothing against the ultimate fate of life, the universe,
and everything!

When Democrats argue that Iraq is a distraction from the War on
Terror, Republicans are nodding along.

Yep, it's just a little blip on the screen, forget about Iraq and look
at this huge war!

In fact, don't even bother to look at Iraq, just study these scary
pictures of people chanting "Death to America."

Fascists is the perfect word for them because people understand that
it's horrible, but they haven't the least clue what it means.

Rove and co. love the fact that it's been tossed around with such
abandon over the last few years -- remember "blogo-fascist?" --
because that's served to not only scrub away any exact definition and
make the word part of the acceptable political vocabulary.

They can call every Muslim from Mecca to Manhattan an Islamo-fascist,
and anyone trying to correct them only looks like a pedant.

Elevating the war allows the Republicans to follow up with that second
word, "appeaser."

After all, if you are fighting a "police action" against a clearly
picayune opponent, then arguing over the strategy seems acceptable.

But "weaken" the government by disagreeing on tactics in the middle of
the greatest struggle that mankind has ever faced... hey, is it too
late to resurrect traitor and terrorist?

The Democratic Strategy for 2006


On the left hand side of the aisle, Democrats also have a two part
strategy.

The first part is as simple as the Republican strategy and can also be
summed up in a word: Iraq.

As much as the Republicans want people to ignore Iraq and concentrate
on the broader "war," that's how much the Democrats want the public to
stare at exactly what's going on in Baghdad and how much it's unlike
all the Republican promises.

Here's something that's rarely said of Democratic campaigns: that's
good strategy.

The Republicans have handled the war that it seems they put General
Custer in charge of strategy and made Wrong Way Corrigan head of
logistics.

Quite simply, Iraq alone is the largest single blunder this nation has
made - ever.

Making sure that all Republicans share the blame as enablers of this
ugliness is not only smart, but just.

And to the extent that this strategy forces Democrats to give up
illusions that they can provide half-hearted support Republican
adventurism as a means of looking "tough," it has good implications
for the future.

The second part of the Democratic strategy is to attack the Republican
prosecution of the War on Terror.

This includes more pointing at Iraq (good idea), but also includes a
sizable amount of complaining over the details.

Democrats would be more judicious in how they use the money.

They point out that there are probably more terrorist targets in
Manhattan than there are in southern Indiana petting zoos.

They demonstrate that our ports are still wide open, and that Homeland
Security is a bumbling mixture of opposing ideas and wasteful
spending.

There's only one thing wrong with part two of this strategy: it's both
bad politics and just plain stupid.

What's wrong with the War on Terror is not the details of how it's
being fought, it's that there should not be a war on terror.

As Ian Lustick points out in his new book Trapped in the War on
Terror, the whole idea is not only doomed to failure, it's doomed to
disastrous failure.

Lustick shows that the notion of a war on terror is fundamentally
wrong.

It doesn't solve the problem, it feeds the problem.


The first principle of terrorism is to understand that the weak win by
exploiting the strength of the powerful.

When 9/11 terrorists with box cutters hijacked American airliners,
they transformed America's preeminent transportation system into a
devastating weapon of attack.

They also set a trap with the promise of revenge and security as the
bait.

The hijackers' biggest victory was to goad our government into taking
the bait by unleashing the War on Terror.

The worry, witch-hunt, and waste that have ensued are, according to
Ian S. Lustick, destroying American confidence, undermining our
economy, warping our political life, and isolating us from our
international allies.


Rather than arguing over how the war on terror should be fought,
rather than trying to raise the metaphorical heat, Democrats have to
step back and provide America with a real alternative: the war on
terror is a farce.

They can't give into the temptation to tell Republicans how to fight
the war, because that only serves to validate the Republican's ideas
-- that these enemies are "fascists" deserving of an unprecedented
effort, and that this effort can only come in the form of a military
struggle.


Lustick shows how disconnected the War on Terror is from the real but
remote threat terrorism poses.

He explains how the generalized War on Terror began as part of the
justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own.

A whirlwind of fear, failure, and recrimination, this "war" drags
every interest group and politician, he argues, into selfish
competition for its spoils.


The War on Terror is a wholly-owned creation of the right.

It's their territory, and every time you talk about it - even if it's
to suggest how you would "do it better" - only serves to help the
Republicans keep the world on broil.

Democrats can't win by fine-tuning Republican ideas, and if we try the
public will rightly find us guilty of having weak spines and weaker
heads.

Everything that's now being said about the "war on terror" is nothing
but an echo of the fear Americans felt at the onset of the Cold War.

They were faced with the same sorts of possibilities -- sleeper cells
and anarchists -- and wrestled with the same kind of approaches to
solving those issues.


Facing the threat of nuclear incineration during the Cold War, America
overcame panic about nonexistent communist sleeper cells poised to
destroy the country, a panic fueled by the destructive hysteria of
McCarthyism.

Through careful analysis of the Soviet threat, the nation managed to
sustain a productive national life and achieve victory, despite the
terrifying daily possibility of catastrophe.


America decided the best way out of the Cold War was not by directly
attacking its opponents or by rescinding the rights of citizens, but
by being America.

We threw off that hysteria the Republicans are now rushing to
increase.

We won by holding to our principles, not by surrendering them.

Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are perfectly apt, because both
were misguided efforts to attack philosophies by waging war against
countries.

That didn't work then, won't work now (and for God's sake, when
Republicans start the war drums for the next round, it won't work
then, either).


Winning the Terror War

People often try to make Rove out as some kind of magician, but in
this case, all his cards are on the table and have been for months.

Republicans are going to pound the podium 24/7 from now till election
day while screaming about the coming apocalypse.

They're going to embrace the War on Terror and hug it like a bloody
teddy bear.

If there's a thermostat on the American temperature, they want to set
it for 1000 degrees.

If Democrats are content to play this game on the Republican court,
there's every chance that come the second week of November, we'll be
moaning about how the Neocons staged a "miracle comeback" and got us
again.

There is only one strategy that will completely blow the Republicans
out of the pool.

We have to do the one thing that Republicans never, never think to do
themselves: show real bravery.

Point out that in their actions, the Republicans are doing exactly
what Osama and his pals want them to do.

They've managed to take a tiny splinter group of extremists -- a group
that never had more than few thousand adherents and which was roundly
detested within the Muslim world -- and turned these nutcases into
folk heroes.

We've held a five year fund-raising and recruiting drive for Al Qaeda
while pouring out American blood and America dollars like both are in
endless supply.

There is no external threat to American freedom, no threat but the one
we create ourselves.

Abraham Lincoln put it so aptly in 1838:


At what point shall we expect the approach of danger?

By what means shall we fortify against it?

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean,
and crush us at a blow?

Never!

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the
treasure of the earth in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a
commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a
track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected?

I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us.

It cannot come from abroad.

If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and
finisher.

As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by
suicide.


Just because Bush and the Republicans have decided to go skipping
along the yellow brick road to Armageddon doesn't mean the country has
to play Toto to their Dorothy.

It is not too late for cooler heads to prevail.

Democrats must offer the American people a real alternative, a
refreshing breeze of sanity.

A cool, steady hand at the tiller, able to understand threats and
address them without elevating every mouse to the status of tiger.

Democrats can not be too timid to point out that the Republicans are
rushing us into a disaster of our own making.

__________________________________________________________

In other words.....ATTACK!!!

Harry

Fascists is the perfect word for them because people understand that
it's horrible, but they haven't the least clue what it means.

..............................................................................................................

They can call every Muslim from Mecca to Manhattan an Islamo-fascist,
and anyone trying to correct them only looks like a pedant.

....................................................................................................................

Quite simply, Iraq alone is the largest single blunder this nation has
made - ever.

.......................................................................................................................

The War on Terror is a wholly-owned creation of the right.

....................................................................................................................

Republicans are going to pound the podium 24/7 from now till election
day while screaming about the coming apocalypse.

They're going to embrace the War on Terror and hug it like a bloody
teddy bear.

...................................................................................................................

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/9/155027/0374

09/09/2006

Democrats Must Stop Being Appeasers

By Devilstower


The word first appeared in the mealy mouths of the right wing venom
patrol.

Bill and Rush and Anne tried out "traitors," and made a go at just
directly calling Democrats "terrorists," but the word that survived
the focus groups and test polling was "appeasers."

Stamped with Rovian approval, that word next began to pass through the
lips of men like little Ricky Santorum and hiss from the lipless beak
of ***** Cheney.

Another few weeks, and even supposedly moderate senators were using
this term to refer to their "respected colleagues."

Finally, with the ice broken, Bush rolled out the word as the central
focus of the Republican attempt to turn around their poll numbers this
election season.

Democrats are appeasers.

They're right, we are appeasers.

But it's not the terrorists we need to stop appeasing, it's the
Republicans.



The Republican Plan for Election 2006


Here's your big October surprise for this season:

there won't be any October surprise.

Oh, patrols in Afghanistan might rope in another dozen or so Al Qaeda
#2's.

They might even unearth the bones of Osama.

The "government of Iraq" might launch a program to get all their
fingers dyed purple.

None of that should come as a surprise at all, because Republicans
have already announced their plan for November.

It comes down to just two words: fascists and appeasers.

By using the word fascists, the Republicans mean to raise the stakes.

Newt Gingrich talked about recasting the War on Terror as "World War
III" and complained when he couldn't catch the ear of the
administration, but the deafness they displayed wasn't a sign of
disagreement with Newt, it was just signal that they had already
incorporated his message -- and then some.

They've elevated the War on Terror above all previous wars.

It's a "clash of civilizations," the ultimate showdown between the
forces of light and darkness.

Apocalypse Plus.

Fascist is simply the worst, most emotionally resonate word they could
think of and not have to pay their own FCC censors every time they
talk.

The Republicans are absolutely committed to emphasizing the threat
presented by "Islamo-fascists," painting them as a hovering terror
that threatens to swoop down on children at night.

A boogeyman for all occasions combining the worst aspects of Hitler,
Attila the Hun, and tooth decay.

In doing so, they hope to sweep the losses of Iraq under the rug.

In effect, they want to trivialize that conflict as just the opening
to the great battle to come.

Three thousand dead Americans?

Bah, that's nothing against the ultimate fate of life, the universe,
and everything!

When Democrats argue that Iraq is a distraction from the War on
Terror, Republicans are nodding along.

Yep, it's just a little blip on the screen, forget about Iraq and look
at this huge war!

In fact, don't even bother to look at Iraq, just study these scary
pictures of people chanting "Death to America."

Fascists is the perfect word for them because people understand that
it's horrible, but they haven't the least clue what it means.

Rove and co. love the fact that it's been tossed around with such
abandon over the last few years -- remember "blogo-fascist?" --
because that's served to not only scrub away any exact definition and
make the word part of the acceptable political vocabulary.

They can call every Muslim from Mecca to Manhattan an Islamo-fascist,
and anyone trying to correct them only looks like a pedant.

Elevating the war allows the Republicans to follow up with that second
word, "appeaser."

After all, if you are fighting a "police action" against a clearly
picayune opponent, then arguing over the strategy seems acceptable.

But "weaken" the government by disagreeing on tactics in the middle of
the greatest struggle that mankind has ever faced... hey, is it too
late to resurrect traitor and terrorist?

The Democratic Strategy for 2006


On the left hand side of the aisle, Democrats also have a two part
strategy.

The first part is as simple as the Republican strategy and can also be
summed up in a word: Iraq.

As much as the Republicans want people to ignore Iraq and concentrate
on the broader "war," that's how much the Democrats want the public to
stare at exactly what's going on in Baghdad and how much it's unlike
all the Republican promises.

Here's something that's rarely said of Democratic campaigns: that's
good strategy.

The Republicans have handled the war that it seems they put General
Custer in charge of strategy and made Wrong Way Corrigan head of
logistics.

Quite simply, Iraq alone is the largest single blunder this nation has
made - ever.

Making sure that all Republicans share the blame as enablers of this
ugliness is not only smart, but just.

And to the extent that this strategy forces Democrats to give up
illusions that they can provide half-hearted support Republican
adventurism as a means of looking "tough," it has good implications
for the future.

The second part of the Democratic strategy is to attack the Republican
prosecution of the War on Terror.

This includes more pointing at Iraq (good idea), but also includes a
sizable amount of complaining over the details.

Democrats would be more judicious in how they use the money.

They point out that there are probably more terrorist targets in
Manhattan than there are in southern Indiana petting zoos.

They demonstrate that our ports are still wide open, and that Homeland
Security is a bumbling mixture of opposing ideas and wasteful
spending.

There's only one thing wrong with part two of this strategy: it's both
bad politics and just plain stupid.

What's wrong with the War on Terror is not the details of how it's
being fought, it's that there should not be a war on terror.

As Ian Lustick points out in his new book Trapped in the War on
Terror, the whole idea is not only doomed to failure, it's doomed to
disastrous failure.

Lustick shows that the notion of a war on terror is fundamentally
wrong.

It doesn't solve the problem, it feeds the problem.


The first principle of terrorism is to understand that the weak win by
exploiting the strength of the powerful.

When 9/11 terrorists with box cutters hijacked American airliners,
they transformed America's preeminent transportation system into a
devastating weapon of attack.

They also set a trap with the promise of revenge and security as the
bait.

The hijackers' biggest victory was to goad our government into taking
the bait by unleashing the War on Terror.

The worry, witch-hunt, and waste that have ensued are, according to
Ian S. Lustick, destroying American confidence, undermining our
economy, warping our political life, and isolating us from our
international allies.


Rather than arguing over how the war on terror should be fought,
rather than trying to raise the metaphorical heat, Democrats have to
step back and provide America with a real alternative: the war on
terror is a farce.

They can't give into the temptation to tell Republicans how to fight
the war, because that only serves to validate the Republican's ideas
-- that these enemies are "fascists" deserving of an unprecedented
effort, and that this effort can only come in the form of a military
struggle.


Lustick shows how disconnected the War on Terror is from the real but
remote threat terrorism poses.

He explains how the generalized War on Terror began as part of the
justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own.

A whirlwind of fear, failure, and recrimination, this "war" drags
every interest group and politician, he argues, into selfish
competition for its spoils.


The War on Terror is a wholly-owned creation of the right.

It's their territory, and every time you talk about it - even if it's
to suggest how you would "do it better" - only serves to help the
Republicans keep the world on broil.

Democrats can't win by fine-tuning Republican ideas, and if we try the
public will rightly find us guilty of having weak spines and weaker
heads.

Everything that's now being said about the "war on terror" is nothing
but an echo of the fear Americans felt at the onset of the Cold War.

They were faced with the same sorts of possibilities -- sleeper cells
and anarchists -- and wrestled with the same kind of approaches to
solving those issues.


Facing the threat of nuclear incineration during the Cold War, America
overcame panic about nonexistent communist sleeper cells poised to
destroy the country, a panic fueled by the destructive hysteria of
McCarthyism.

Through careful analysis of the Soviet threat, the nation managed to
sustain a productive national life and achieve victory, despite the
terrifying daily possibility of catastrophe.


America decided the best way out of the Cold War was not by directly
attacking its opponents or by rescinding the rights of citizens, but
by being America.

We threw off that hysteria the Republicans are now rushing to
increase.

We won by holding to our principles, not by surrendering them.

Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are perfectly apt, because both
were misguided efforts to attack philosophies by waging war against
countries.

That didn't work then, won't work now (and for God's sake, when
Republicans start the war drums for the next round, it won't work
then, either).


Winning the Terror War

People often try to make Rove out as some kind of magician, but in
this case, all his cards are on the table and have been for months.

Republicans are going to pound the podium 24/7 from now till election
day while screaming about the coming apocalypse.

They're going to embrace the War on Terror and hug it like a bloody
teddy bear.

If there's a thermostat on the American temperature, they want to set
it for 1000 degrees.

If Democrats are content to play this game on the Republican court,
there's every chance that come the second week of November, we'll be
moaning about how the Neocons staged a "miracle comeback" and got us
again.

There is only one strategy that will completely blow the Republicans
out of the pool.

We have to do the one thing that Republicans never, never think to do
themselves: show real bravery.

Point out that in their actions, the Republicans are doing exactly
what Osama and his pals want them to do.

They've managed to take a tiny splinter group of extremists -- a group
that never had more than few thousand adherents and which was roundly
detested within the Muslim world -- and turned these nutcases into
folk heroes.

We've held a five year fund-raising and recruiting drive for Al Qaeda
while pouring out American blood and America dollars like both are in
endless supply.

There is no external threat to American freedom, no threat but the one
we create ourselves.

Abraham Lincoln put it so aptly in 1838:


At what point shall we expect the approach of danger?

By what means shall we fortify against it?

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean,
and crush us at a blow?

Never!

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the
treasure of the earth in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a
commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a
track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected?

I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us.

It cannot come from abroad.

If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and
finisher.

As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by
suicide.


Just because Bush and the Republicans have decided to go skipping
along the yellow brick road to Armageddon doesn't mean the country has
to play Toto to their Dorothy.

It is not too late for cooler heads to prevail.

Democrats must offer the American people a real alternative, a
refreshing breeze of sanity.

A cool, steady hand at the tiller, able to understand threats and
address them without elevating every mouse to the status of tiger.

Democrats can not be too timid to point out that the Republicans are
rushing us into a disaster of our own making.

__________________________________________________________

In other words.....ATTACK!!!

Harry