The ‘War on Terror’ is for Girlie Men
30 May 2006 2:12 pm by Taylor Marsh
The “War on Terror” is for Girlie Men
General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National
Press Club on Monday that he had “objected to the use of the term 'war
on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people
in uniform as being the solution.”He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the
recognition that “terror is the method they use.”
 |
There's quite a discussion going on about the “war on terror” right
now. I jumped in this morning. Of course, the wingnuts hate it when I call our
president by his terror name, but it fits, so too bad. Besides, I have mocked
our president's campaign from the beginning, putting it in quotes for a reason.
Atrios says it's a “hideously inappropriate metaphor” meant to “cover
for a bunch of hideously inappropriate policies.”
From 2004, Chris Bowers offers his terrific rundown of “liberal hawks”
on the subject, of which I consider myself one; noting that you can be against
the Iraq war and still be a “liberal hawk.”
Matt Stoller continues today running it all down in a “framework of the
war on terror concept,” saying its for “weaklings.”
Pach talks first off about a “war on the Constitution.” Amen to that,
but he hit on something I've talked about for years, here and on the radio.
All wingnut campaigns are about one thing and it isn't the facts. It's
all about emotion. Hack radio is filled with this
type of Republican campaign. Wingnuts across the dial use emotions to get
their audience pumped, leaving facts out because they don't fit their political
fantasies. Karl Rove has used hack radio to put the president in office twice.
It's about time everyone woke up and smelled the right-wing's radio campaign
in action through the “war on terror.” After all, if it worked on
radio, why not expand it to wage the mother of all wars?
Women know all about this sort of thing, a war on emotions, that is. Emotions
just aren't good to have in the real world. Personally, you need them, but put
into action in your professional life they're a disaster. It's just one reason
the “war on terror” hasn't worked. You simply cannot wage a “global
war on terror” for very long, because its rooted in emotion, which eventually
runs out on any subject. That's why Bush's war has continually changed its heading.
Emotions need perpetual fuel, because without it the vessel becomes exhausted.
America is now exhausted from the drumbeat of “the war on terror”
that has spent our emotions.
Frankly, it was bound to happen. Bush just hoped he would get to 2008 before
the campaign collapsed. He didn't, so it has.
Matt Stoller used the word “weakling” today, but we still have to
have an image. What's a weakling look like? A man with no muscle? A woman?
Let's just say it.
The war on terror is for girlie men.
It's for weak kneed chickenhawk sisssy men who can't stand to have a little
uncertainty, danger and threats in their line of vision. After all, there have
been terrorist groups for decades. Why all of a sudden is the wingnut war-o-shere
crowd wetting themselves that these terrorists are going to take us down?
Where is the respect for our military from the neocon chickenhawks? Do they
really believe we cannot win the “war on terror”? It's just more of
the Republican strong on defense and military myth.
The neocons are afraid of a bunch of Islamofascists armed with
box cutters? Thank the gods they weren't on United 93. These Republican girlie men are willing to give our lives over to suicide bombers that discard life against
which their idea of defense is to change who we are. They're ready to
hand America off to these pious, raving pissants.
What a bunch of girlie men. People who have taken away rights and
liberties, because their emotions have run amok over Iraq, which is just one part of
some “war on terror” tantrum being waged from the presidential play pen.
Everybody knows you don't hand a loaded firearm to little boys.
Frightened girlie men shoot people in the face.
