"That there's a terrorist, Mr President."
It has been widely reported that Joe Biden used the term, "terrorists" to refer to tea-partiers in a Democratic closed-door meeting held in connection with the debt ceiling vote. Biden denies using the word, but it appears at least one Democrat in the meeting threw the word around.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20086836-503544.html
At any rate, to whomever used the term to refer to tea-partiers, I would say this:
How many people have been killed by the tea party?
Have many people have been physically assaulted by the tea party?
How many people have been threatened with violence by the tea-party?
How many people in the tea party have been charged with such an offense?
How many tea party rallies have featured speakers using racial epithets?
Did the tea parties have anything to do with our deficit and debt?
What is the reason the tea parties were formed? (Answer: rising taxes and out-of-control government spending.)
You see, when Biden, or Mike Doyle or whoever used the word "terrorist", they were referring to a large segment of the population who are older, patriotic and law-abiding people. If Joe Biden wants to see an American (ex) terrorist, he need look no farther that Bill Ayres or Bernadine Dohrn, who helped President Obama get his political start. Note CBS's biased reference to Sarah Palin charging Obama with "palling around" with Ayres and "reports (that) indicated " that Obama and Ayres were not close." They were plenty close.
Whoever used the word has cheapened and trivialized the word. Tea-partiers don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Tea-partiers don't set off bombs or blow themselves up to kill innocent civilians. Tea-partiers don't behead people.
Personally, I don't think that Biden and his fellow Democrats know a terrorist from a cheeseburger.
14 comments:
The only issue I have with this post is that you referred to some as (ex) terrorists. Once a terrorist always a terrorist. Why Ayers is not in the can for life is beyond me. Instead I hear he has a high paid "teaching" gig. Wasn't this Dohrn a "Weatherman?" Perhaps she would prefer "Weatherperson" or Weatherwoman." Either way she should be eating her lunch at the regularly scheduled feeding time in some Federal facility.
In our society we,in theory at least, forgive those who have transgressed in the past. If someone serves their time for say, DWI or battery then they have paid their dues and done their time.
Not so with terrorists. Once a terrorist always a terrorist.
Biden should have his own comedy gig. He is only good for laughs. Like a court jester.
Joe Biden suffers from Foot-in-Mouth disease. Its symptoms are very easy to spot.
Open mouth and insert foot.
You guys must have a lot of time on your hands.
I'm not sure that questions (2) and (3) would work out in your favor if empirically examined. I don't have time to catalog the incidents though, so I'll just say you asked a rhetorical question, and it is not entirely convincing.
You are also wrong about why the Tea Party began. It began because people were offended that after large financial institutions had brought our nation to the brink of disaster, they were being propped up and salvaged by infusions of taxpayer dollars. This is a policy that began under George W. Bush, but the planned rallies and propaganda to appeal to it was launched within a month or so after Barack Obama took office.
Obama could have shrivelled the movement in its cradle, if he had not felt so obligated to prove how "responsible" (read, conventional) he was, when the public mood called for a sharp change of policy. He wouldn't have had to destroy the banks, nor nationalize them wholesale, but he should have cast aside Summers and Geithner, and adopted policies which preserved the flow of money that our entire economy depends on, while breaking up the "too big to fail" edifices as a means of destroying the irresponsibility this assumption breeds.
Michelle Bachman would have condemned it as "socialism." So what? The net result would have been highly popular, highly effective, and not in the least socialist in its net results.
Instead, a slick cabal of professional politicians channeled an unappeased but inchoate protest into a hypocritical platform amounting to "See all the carnage we ran up on our watch? Its all hitting the fan on Obama's watch, blame him and cut the budget indiscriminately!
But would I call the Tea Party movement terrorists? At this point, no. It could generate some quite easily. (Sharon Angle came close). Some of them are playing a game of chicken, which is unworthy of would-be patriots. But let's remember, for many in the Tea Party, the debt ceiling wasn't a particularly important priority anyway. They don't all think alike.
Cabbie: The reason Dohrn and Ayers are not in the can for life is that the Justice Dept. cut a deal with them, on Ronald Reagan's watch. I can see plausible arguments that they should not have done it, although it is a common move when someone not in custody and not close to being captures offers to surrender for reasonable terms. Also, as I recall, the evidence to convict was not overwhelming. Since they weren't sentenced to prison, there is no reason they should not earn a living using whatever skills they have.
My mother, a life-long Republican, is quite impressed with the work of the legal program Dohrn runs at Northwestern. Mom doesn't necessarily endorse anything else the woman has to say in public.
What a surprise! Siarlys once again doesn't know what he is talking about. He has never been to a Tea Party rally (I have been to a couple of them). The initial outrage was the size of the government and not about the (Democrat caused) mortgage debacle. It gained momentum during the hated ObamaCare fight.
Basically it consists of all people who believe in lower taxes, smaller government, stronger military, higher morality. Those happen to be what left wingers oppose in whole or in part.
Siarlys has a problem with "pre-analytic cognition.". He knows what he wants to mock or oppose depending upon where the information comes from.
What is amazing about these "terrorist" labels is that they come from people who refuse to call real terrorist ...terrorists. Major Hassan, for example, is just a troubled individual. There is a long list of other examples.
.
Bartender, you are not supposed to drink on the job.
"Once a terrorist always a terrorist", oh yeah? Throughout history there were terrorists who later became great (or not so great) leaders. Depends on whose side you are on.
Discuss this with Ariel Sharon when you meet him in hell.
Siarlys,
I see you won't call the Tea Party movement terrorists "at this point." I'm glad to hear it. I myself don't believe that "La Raza" is a terrorist organization. At this point. Perhaps getting there soon. Time will tell. Personally I don't trust hardcore "true believers" in any group.
As far as Ayers and Dohrn are concerned I do indeed see them as terrorists. Yes, they have expressed regret of their past actions. No matter. Many criminals, as they age and mature, express regret at the trangressions of youth. However common criminality and politically motivated terrorism are two seperate things entirely. One can be forgivable and the other not. I would compare Ayers and Dohrn with DeFreeze possibly although the SLA was it seems more of a group of murderous common criminals than real politically motivated terrorists. Perhaps a better comparison would be to equate them with McViegh. The only difference, as I see it, is McViegh was unfortunately a succesful terrorist while the Weather Underground was not so much. Not because they didn't have aspirations. They were just screw ups.
Dohrn and Ayers are terrorists period. Any "good works" they have done since being active is of no consequence.
Cabbie,
I don't think that Ayers and Dohrn ever expressed regrets at all... at least according to the N.Y Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html
Maybe you have something that shows they repented but I don't believe so.
I also believe La Raza is more of a racist organization than a terrorist organization. La Raza, after all, means "The Race." It is sorta like the Black Caucus in Congress. If there was a mirror image White Caucus, and all you had to do to get in was to be white and no others welcome, it would certainly be labeled racist.
.
Ayers and his wife have never expressed regret for what they did. Ayres regretted they didn't do more. The closest he came to regret was saying that it was a "strategic mistake" or something like that.
I see. I thought I read somewhere that they had expressed some level of regret. I am not an expert on these educated thugs. Perhaps it was Mark Rudd that expressed some regret on his past activities.
Does this count as expressing regret?
Q "Now we turn to the question of regret. Many of the interviews and the writing that has occurred in the wake of the movie has focused on if you regret your actions and your methods. I find this interesting: it seems to be a way of dismissing the importance of your Weather’s politics and ideology. Do you think that the American media realizes the vastly important position that Weather has played in American history (along with the anti-war movement) or do you think that the only reflection that takes place is viewed through the lens of “they were crazy hippies”? (Even left-leaning Salon.com titled the review of the film “When Terrorism was Cool”)"
A. "The American media barely even recognizes that an anti-war movement ever existed, and almost not at all that it had any impact on forcing the US to leave Vietnam. As for Weatherman, the American media only recognizes it as a misbegotten attempt at playing revolutionary. So I expect absolutely nothing at all from the American media. I believe that we weakened the larger movement, whose goal was uniting as many people as possible to end the Vietnam War. Besides causing people to drop out, we gave the government ammunition to smear the whole anti-war movement as violent crazies bent on destruction of the society. Did our actions help attract the huge middle of American society who might otherwise have joined the anti-war movement, public opinion being vastly against the war? “Bring the War Home,” was as counter-productive a line in 1969 and 1970 as it was in 2001 at the World Trade Center.
We should have united as many people as possible within an anti-war movement. We should have maintained an anti-imperialist analysis but not insisted that everyone engaged in armed revolutionary struggle. That was stupid, it split the movement and it played into the hands of the FBI. ..."
Today, Mark Rudd teaches math at a small community college in New Mexico. Typical! They all end up teaching in higher education.
What dates were the rallies you attended Miggie? [For that matter, how would you know if I have attended a rally or not?] I've studied the public response to our near brush with Great Depression 2.0, and the Tea Party's origins were definitely part of it. You may well have attended a "rally" organized by the slick professional political operatives who hijacked the movement, lock stock and barrel, by the spring of 2009. And poor uninformed fool, you don't even know what went before.
Now, moving on to Cabbie, who has shown many times that he is a thoughtful citizen, a gentleman, and a scholar. (I have no idea whether he has a degree, but I don't either.) A well informed citizen doesn't need one, but does need to read widely and thoroughly. Right now I am reading George S. Schuyler's fascinating biography, Black and Conservative.
I thought of Dohrn as something of an embarrassment at best. I hadn't heard of Ayers until they surfaced, because his wife was the one with the big mouth. When she was denied a license to practice law, for lack of the necessary moral requisites, I thought it a good lawyer joke, and a good back-handed put-down of Dohrn, to comment that in my opinion, she has every moral requisite to be a lawyer.
But I would say that politically motivated acts of terror are in many situations EASIER to forgive than simple crimes. There are gradations in both of course. Killing Osama bin Laden was necessary and appropriate. Executing Karla Faye Tucker was not. One reason cutting a deal with Ayers and Dohrn doesn't bother me is that they had been effectively defanged for years.
Although I don't expect Cabbie to end up in hell, and quite possibly not Ariel Sharon either, it remains true that many of the founders of Israel, and particularly of its armed forces, were at earlier stages of their lives deemed "terrorists" by at least some duly constituted legal authorities. That also goes for Eamonn de Valera AND Michael Collins. Lots of Irish Americans, many of them conservatives in all other respects, gladly funded the IRA, even the Provos.
There is some truth to the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." How to apply that to questions of law, justice, and mercy (three distinct matters) is never an easy one. Many of the older jihadis were once praised by Ronald Reagan as "freedom fighters." Osama is debatable, but the Haqkani organization is not.
The "New Black Panther Party" is a collection of unlettered thugs who grasped a fading symbol they obviously haven't studied as a neat label. At least Huey P. Newton read up on what he was talking about, although an oversize ego, an eventual drug habit, and an armed posse not even governed by a written law of its own, make a mockery of what he once promised. I have respect for many of the old Panthers, but I have to conclude that Pearson's bio of Newton is reasonably accurate.
Siarlys,
Where to begin? I agree that some criminal acts can not be forgiven. Pre meditated murder (in most cases), child molestation and murder, and perhaps a few others can not be forgiven. Period. Most crimes can be forgiven, after time served and restitution made, although many "career" criminals can not "get with the program." They end up costing money in housing, babysitting, feeding, etc.
Politically motivated terrorism can never be forgiven however. There is however, a fine line between terrorism and the practice of guerrilla warfare. I think it was Clausewitz who coined the term "Der Klein Krieg" in describing guerrilla action. I don't remember what his commentary on it was though. At any rate, groups like the Weather Undergroud, individual (or groups) like McVeigh and the IRA are terrorists. Terrorism can be state sponsored or supported also. The so called Eizengruppen (and their local affiliates) can be classified as a terrorist organization while the French Maquis can not. The Maquis practiced unconventional war. There was no other option available to them.
It is pretty easy to fall on one's face when discussing this issue and yes there is some validity to "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" thing.
The main difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, as I see it, is the tendency to attack military vs civilian targets.
There is a fine line, I grant you, between the two. Often, as they say, it is in the eye of the beholder. Che could be classified as a guerilla fighter and terrorist both perhaps. The Kurdistan Workers Party? Hard to say at this point. If they continue to attack Iranian and (perhaps) Turkish military organizations I would support them. If they target civilians I would classify them as a terrorist group. Hamas and Hizbulloh, (however it is spelled this week), are terrorist groups and should be dealt with accordingly.
It is a complicated subject this terrorism.
I won't get into the hate group thing on this posting. Perhaps later.
Cabbie, once again, it is a pleasure to read an internally consistent, well-reasoned argument, free of ad hominem sniping.
I agree on the distinction between military and civilian targets. I also agree that it can be a difficult line to draw. The Economist recently raised the question, if operating drone flights is legitimate warfare, is it legitimate warfare for the targetted organizations to attack the distance facilities and personnel where the drone flights are operated? Often, these are military personnel in a building somewhere in California, who go home to their families at the end of their shift.
My first thought would be, the exact facility where the monitoring and control takes place would have to be considered a legitimate military target, but following the men home, and killing them in their driveway, would not. Similarly, it would have been a military operation if Chris Hani were killed while under arms with Umkonto we Sizwe (the African National Congress military wing), but it was murder to gun him down in his driveway after a peace settlement.
McVeigh is outside the pale because:
1) he deliberately targeted a civilian milieu, and even argued to justify it,
2) he acted as a lone wolf, albeit with a handful of accomplices, not as a soldier under orders from an organization with a political platform.
Ayers and Dohrn certainly thought of themselves as "freedom fighters," although they were, at minimum, extremely immature in both thought and action. Because they defined themselves so does not settle the question.
But in the end, there is very little I consider unforgiveable. Killing Osama was justified because he was very much active and unrepentant. There are, as you say, some who are never going to be "with the program," and those are the ones who need to be kept locked up for life, literally, unless we have a reliable framework for choosing who merits death. That's not about justice or proper punishment, it is simply about protection of the community -- a factor which legitimately comes into play after a person has been convicted of a crime and accordingly deprived of liberty and property.
Hamas and Hezbi-u-Lah would be combatants if they focused on direct attacks against IDF positions, and prompt forceful response from the IDF would be equally legitimate. The fact that they target civilians, and hide behind the skirts of their own civilian milieu, constitutes terrorism.
That's about as much as I think is right to offer in one comment.
Post a Comment