They try to hide behind jingoism, they claim to be just doing the work of Jesus (a claim, I'm sure, that makes Jesus vomit), but no group of people in the world hate America and what it used to stand for more than Conservative Republicans.Make it Midnight in America Again
Far more than Osama, who seems to have moved on, it is Conservative Republicans who continue to wax nostalgically about 9-11. To Republicans, 9-11 was a time of dreams when smoking corpses lay on the streets of America. If only we were to go back to that time, all would be well again.
I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001] ~Arkansas GOP head Dennis MulliganThey Want us to Die
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail. ~ Stu Bykosfky
Some Republicans wish for terrorist attacks because they believe such attacks will have a noble(?) effect, rekindling jihad in America. Other Republicans want terror attacks for purely recreational purposes. They think it will be fun watching Americans die.
And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you [San Francisco] up, we're not going to do anything about it. ~ Bill O'ReillyGod Wants Us Dead
There is crazy Fred Phelps who believes that God hates gays, Jews, Blacks, Swedes, Irish, Christians who are not him, soldiers, and Minnesotans. Christian Republicans believe that God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish a sinful nation and, therefore, George Bush and "Brownie" were simply doing God's will by not helping New Orleans. Christian Republicans share the belief with Muslim Jihadists that the Jihadists are doing God's will.
Katrina was an act of God upon a sin-loving and rebellious nation ~ David CrowWe Don't Need No Stinkin' Constitution
God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. ~ Jerry Falwell with agreement from Pat Robertson
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." ~ Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (1949). This phrase is quoted by Republicans more frequently than anything in the Constitution itself (except, possibly, for the Second Amendment). It is used to justify warrentless wiretaps, secret prisons, torture, and unlimited presidential power. Basically, they believe that the Constitution is a feeble list of suggestions that can be ignored whenever they become inconvenient.
On this reasoning, the president would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished. ~ John Cole analyzing the writings of former Bush adviser John Yoo that argue that as Commander-in-Chief the President has the power to ignore the rest of the Constitution.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made ~ United States Constitution Article III, Section 2, Clause 1
The president has the sole authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions on behalf of the United States, rather than the courts or Congress ~ John Yoo
The war on terrorism is a new kind of war, a new paradigm [that] renders obsolete Geneva 's strict limitation on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders some of its provisions quaint. ~ Alberto Gonzales
3 comments:
KE, you're drinking the wrong Kool-Aid again.
Nobody with any sense wants another 9/11, and you are being dishonest with your misquotes.
“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.
Use a little sense. He's not saying he wants an attack, just pointing out (wrongly, I think) that if attacks occur people will appreciate Bush again. He's wrong, because at this point Bush would be blamed no matter what happened.
As for Stu Bykosfky, with whom I disagree as much as you do, he failed to deliver a major point, which would have been that an attack would be more damaging if we're divided than unified. Still, it's beyond stupid to say we need a Pearl Harbor to prevent the next Pearl Harbor. Far better the rancor and division. If an attack comes, we'll pull together as needed, but if one never comes, then our division doesn't hurt as much as an attack would have. Even considering how the division emboldens the enemy.
And that's how most conservatives see it. Even the (tongue-in-cheek) bloodthirsty IMAO made fun of Blykosfky.
I got the context right. Milligan was looking upon 9/11 with fond rememberance. It has become a common refrain among Republicans that 9/11 was a Godsend because it caused America to love Bush and lust for vengence.
Those days are long gone but the dream continues.
9/11 served brilliantly as a justification for the already planned occupation of the Middle East - although it required that the timetable be brought forward.
Now that the occupation has effectively failed, and even some far right wingers are talking about the need to give up and withdraw, a second major terrorist attack would serve as justification for staying.
No, I'm not saying 9/11 was fabricated, or that another one might be. I'm saying 9/11 created an air of moral outrage and rightous certainty that has now been lost - and which the conservatives would love to regain.
Just surfing by.
Post a Comment