Thursday, September 09, 2004

There's nothing to fear...

I was surprised to hear Dick Cheney's comments that Americans should be afraid of another terrorist attack if John Kerry gets elected. I don't like the idea that Cheney is using threats and fear to profer votes from people. Let me remind you that this is the administration that already has one terrorist attack on their record and there is evidence that Bush knew about the possibility of a terrorist attack days before 9/11 (and perhaps could have prevented it). And now I'm supposed to "fear" what will happen if George W Bush doesn't get elected again. Thanks, but no thanks Dick Cheney. I think that I will take my chances.
As we come upon the anniversary of a tragic event in our history I have to ask, how has the Bush administration fought the war on terror? We heard about duct tape and the need for bottled water, we have a terror alert color system (which from what I understand doesn't actually change how people live their lives but just acts as a constant reminder of the "threat" of a terrorist attack), "advanced" airport security and an unrelated war in another country. Yes, I feel so much safer now. Need I remind Dick Cheney what his running mate said a week earlier? GW believes that the war on terror will never end. So what am I supposed to fear? If the war on terror is ongoing, then why not see what will happen if we elect someone else?
One of the famous quotes from the Great Depression is FDR's statement that "There is nothing to fear but fear itself" and I believe that Americans are a group of people who do not want to be led by fear. I hope that they take a stand this November and prove the truth in this statement.

4 Comments:

At 8:25 AM, Blogger Erin said...

Michael Moore's thesis gets into how we (as in the public) get manipulated through the use of scare tactics. I think some really interesting social psychology has looked at this, but (hey sociologists!) this would be even more interesting looked at on a societal level.

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger Drek said...

Amen, sister.

What I really enjoy about Cheney's remark is the lack of explanation for it. Why would terrorists be more likely to attack with Kerry in charge? Wait, wait, it's coming to me...

Kerry is rational, he'll respond reasonably to an attack, but Bush! Bush is a self-righteous, unpredictable child with nuclear weapons! We don't want to provoke him, who KNOWS what he'll do!Yeah. Just the quality I want in my Commander-in-Chief.

Congratulations, by the way, on learning how to post, Heather.

 
At 12:18 AM, Blogger Carolyn said...

This brings to mind a question I have been asking myself lately: Do I really feel safer two years after 9/11 than I did the day after? (To tackle the issue of if we, in reality, are safer I think we could launch a whole other blogger). George W. Bush has launched this war on terrorism to make America "safer", but I think he has achieved the opposite. If we look at Iraq, we have a completely unstable nation where terrorists could easily hide out or access weapons. And that's just the beginning. How about our service men and women who are currently in Iraq? I wonder if they feel "safer". Like Heather, I'll take my chances at feeling "safer" with Kerry.

 
At 9:13 PM, Blogger Goesh said...

Under Bush I think there have been 3 terrorist convictions out of 23 arrests, and 144,884.03$ worth of frozen assets. Kerry could send his boys into the Pashtun frontiers of Pakistan and round up bin laden in a week or so. I think his personal charisma would easily persuage radical Islamic clerics to quit telling their followers it is their sacred obligation to kill you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home