Fear

[Inverted Things]

I just had an interesting thought: This election will show whether a presidential candidate can be elected on the basis of fear (fear of terrorism or other attacks). I’m sorry to offend those on the board who support George W. Bush, but I’ve some thoughts to back this up.

Now, the people on this board tend to be well-informed enough to be voting for Bush because of his positions/ideology. This is intended to be an analysis of swing voters, the occasionally not-so-informed people who actually decide the elections.

The Republicans are looking into what it would take to postpone the November election in the event that a terrorist attack happens between now and Election Day. I have to ask why? After all, this country had a presidential election during the Civil War.

In order to induce fear, the Bush Administration started a terrorist color code system to measure the danger of a terrorist attack (again, sorry if this is offensive, but I can’t see any other way to view it).

The Bush Administration also used fear to convince the masses to go into Iraq. (I’m NOT saying that ousting Saddam was unjustified, although I believe it was). The methods by which Bush and Company sold the war to the public included
1.   WMDs. I have a difficult time believing our intelligence was so far wrong here, while the UN’s was right on the money
2.   Ties to terrorism (specifically Al Queda). Osama Bin Laden and Saddam never much cared for each other.
3.   Attempt to get nuclear weapons. Based on a fraudulent intelligence report.
Notice that each of these methods amount to fear mongering.

I’m looking forward to Bush’s speech at the RNC to see if he decides to continue campaigning on fear, or if he goes for a more optimistic approach.

[khirkhib]

By invoking fear, by saying their could be attacks on on the election day is another attempt to lower voter turn-out.

[ATFFL]

1- Our intel agreed with everybody elses, including the UN.  Everyone believed Saddam had large amounts of bio-chem weapons somewhere.

2- There were low level organizational ties, but no collaborative ties.

3- Actually, Saddam was seeking components for nuclear weapons.  He lacked teh ability to do anything with them, though it is not clear he knew that.

[MODU]

True, there is an element of fear in all of those things, but I see it differently.  

First of all, the "Republicans" weren't looking into what it would take to delay the elections.  They were looking into "what to do if we were attacked just before the elections."  Do we have the elections just after the attack like they did in Spain, or do we delay the elections to ensure that the coast is clear and everyone has access to the polls.

The color code system (though a little weak) isn't designed to induce fear, but to give the general public a degree of threat towards the nation.  This is similar to Typhoon condition levels in the Pacific.  Not designed to cause fear, but to help people be aware of what might be coming, and to take necessary actions.

WMDs:  I still do not believe our intel, as well as that of many Western nations, is that far off, and the materials or weapons themselves will be recovered.  However, the UN wasn't "on the money" with this, otherwise there would never had been a need for weapons inspections to begin with.  

The administrations claim to go to war with Iraq never tied Osama to Saddam.  Their claim is that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, which he was.  He publically announced that he was paying the families of suicide bombers in Palestine as compensation for great deeds.  In addition to international terrorism, he committed domestic terrorism.  Both make him a valid target in the war on terrorism (the war is not limited to al Qaeda or its supporters).

As far as nuclear weapons go (minus the 2 tons of nuclear materials removed from Iraq in May), recent reports, both domestically and internationally, are more supportive of the initial claim by the Bush administration that he was seeking nuclear material/weapons.  He may not have ever created a sophisticated weapon like we have, but a "dirty bomb" would be very effective against countries like Kuwait.

So is it fear?  Maybe.  But it's more on the lines of being proactive in order to limit the actual events which you fear from happening.

[khirkhib]

1. HUH.  Why do you think the UN inspectors (and the whole world) wanted to keep investigating the country for weapons before launching an attack.  

2.  The US govenment had stronger orginzation ties with Al Queda than the Iraq government, heck we set up shop and trained them.  Sadam was no ally to Al Queda because they were a threat to his power.

3.  He was seeking.  He was a nut and he would have never been able to do it with sanctions in place.


And on the nuclear thing from you MODU the inspectors new about the radioactive waste dump.  I don't know how that was generated but it may have been medical and practical uses and the UN was just trying to find the approriate way to dispose of it, which is hard enough in our country and so must be extremely difficult in that area of the world.

Edited: OK i didn't know that but it certainly goes to show that we were capable of preventing them from developing any nuclear technology.

[MODU]

Most of it came from the destroyed nuclear "facility" which Isreal bombed in the 80s.  

[MODU]

Or again, like I had stated, warning the nation of a possible retaliation against our nation.  Must not have been a Boy Scout growing up, otherwise you'd understand "Be Prepared."

[Schmitz in 1972]

The Democrats have already proven that fear can elect a president because of what happened back in 1964. The Democrats brilliantly subjected America to a barrage of ads that made America fear Goldwater.

[John Dibble]

Don't act as if fear is the single most important factor in this election, it isn't. It's a factor for some, but not many in reality. Or perhaps it is, just not fear of terrorism - many people fear having George Bush as president again, others fear having John Kerry as president.

[Niles Caulder]

I find Avelaval's premise to be extremely shaky:

First of all, those voters, informed or otherwise, who conclude that Bush is less competent than his opponant and desire a better leader in the War on Terror can vote for Kerry and be doing so out of the same fear.

Secondly, the notion that the administration is looking into ways to postpone the election is nothing short of mythological fantasy.  For this to be the first time an election to be postponed on account of war would be an earthquake in domestic tranquility and a Constitutional Crisis the likes of which unseen since the Civil War.  To say the least, any halfway serious consideration of it would be political suicide for the President merely as the nacent idea got leaked.

Thirdly, It's nice to know that the government covering its a@@  and going public with potential threats of which they become aware will be punished by the predictable polemical forces of binary oppositional politics--having something you can count on in life is comforting.

Fourthly, if anyone has an example in History of a pre-war mobilization accomplished without evocation of fear, please let me know.  What this dynamic has to do with the Bush '04 campaign eludes me---the outcome of the Iraqi War to date is hardly a strategic or tactical asset to the Republicans.

[ATFFL]

1. HUH.  Why do you think the UN inspectors (and the whole world) wanted to keep investigating the country for weapons before launching an attack.  

2.  The US govenment had stronger orginzation ties with Al Queda than the Iraq government, heck we set up shop and trained them.  Sadam was no ally to Al Queda because they were a threat to his power.

3.  He was seeking.  He was a nut and he would have never been able to do it with sanctions in place.

1- If they thought they didn't have them why inspect?  They believed they were there and they believed Saddam was playing games with the inspectors.    If they thought nothing was there why spend the money on inspectors?  Just declare he is WMD free.

2- The US ties you mention were long since severed.  The Iraqi ties were current and on going.  They provided trianing and a safe haven.

3- He did quite a good job with sanctions in place, actually.

[Floridude]

I dont really agree that people will vote because they are scared of terrorism, but if they are, I dare say "So what"?  Why is it necessarily wrong if you fear what would happen if a certain person were elected.  Now Some say Bush would do a better job at fighting terrorism than Kerry, and some say Kerry would do a better job than Bush.  That said, if you fear safety for our country if one candidate is elected, go ahead and vote for the other guy.

I dont think there is fearmongering the times that the terror alert level was raised.    They were raised because it was believed that terrorists were more likely to attack around these times because of our involvement in certain areas

[khirkhib]

1. HUH.  Why do you think the UN inspectors (and the whole world) wanted to keep investigating the country for weapons before launching an attack.  

2.  The US govenment had stronger orginzation ties with Al Queda than the Iraq government, heck we set up shop and trained them.  Sadam was no ally to Al Queda because they were a threat to his power.

3.  He was seeking.  He was a nut and he would have never been able to do it with sanctions in place.

1- If they thought they didn't have them why inspect?  They believed they were there and they believed Saddam was playing games with the inspectors.    If they thought nothing was there why spend the money on inspectors?  Just declare he is WMD free.

2- The US ties you mention were long since severed.  The Iraqi ties were current and on going.  They provided trianing and a safe haven.

3- He did quite a good job with sanctions in place, actually.

1. They suspected that he might have weopons and so they were  investigating to make sure he didn't.  They didn't want to invade a country's sovreignty on a mistake and had the inspections been allowed to continue either their suspecians would have been verified and the world united would have removed Sadam or they would have found, as was the case, that they didn't have weopons and they would have continued making sure that Sadam couldn't get those weopons (which he wasn't able to get under sanctions and the world could encourage the people to take control of their country so that the people can develop their own sense of national pride.  You should not go on a costly, unpredictiable, and dangerous  line of war on very vague and very wrong suspicians.

2.  The Iraqi ties were minor and their were stronger ties to Al Queda with organizations in the US than their were with Organizations or government in Iraq before the invasion.  You can not deny that Al Queda has a stronger presence in Iraq after the invasion than before.

3.  Hey he was a tyrant.  He was terrible.  We should have done more to make sure the Iraqi people were fed during the Santions.  Hell we should have helped the Shiite's who rose up and tried to take Saddam out when the time was right in the early 90s.  During the sanctions however Saddam was not able to make WMDs because the proof is in the pudding.  No weopons, no capability.

[Posterity]

Fear is a powerful motivator in human decision making, so both parties use it to some degree.

But I do think the Republican Party is relying heavily on fear in this campaign.  And it's not just the threat of terrorism either.  The whole campaign seems to be centered around the idea that we need the authority of the Republicans to save us from ourselves and from the evils of the world.

[ATFFL]

1. They suspected that he might have weopons and so they were  investigating to make sure he didn't.  They didn't want to invade a country's sovreignty on a mistake and had the inspections been allowed to continue either their suspecians would have been verified and the world united would have removed Sadam or they would have found, as was the case, that they didn't have weopons and they would have continued making sure that Sadam couldn't get those weopons (which he wasn't able to get under sanctions and the world could encourage the people to take control of their country so that the people can develop their own sense of national pride.  You should not go on a costly, unpredictiable, and dangerous  line of war on very vague and very wrong suspicians.

2.  The Iraqi ties were minor and their were stronger ties to Al Queda with organizations in the US than their were with Organizations or government in Iraq before the invasion.  You can not deny that Al Queda has a stronger presence in Iraq after the invasion than before.

3.  Hey he was a tyrant.  He was terrible.  We should have done more to make sure the Iraqi people were fed during the Santions.  Hell we should have helped the Shiite's who rose up and tried to take Saddam out when the time was right in the early 90s.  During the sanctions however Saddam was not able to make WMDs because the proof is in the pudding.  No weopons, no capability.

1- They were not suspicions, every nation with an intel report on Iraq said he had them, not that he might, but we're not sure.  Show me one nation that said he did not have them.

The inspectors did find violations of the sanctions, by the way.

2- Yes, there were and probably still are ties to organizations inside the US.  Many of them have been found and shut down.

Also, part of the putpose of the invasion was to bring more Al Queda members out into the open in Iraq rather than to other US interests where US civilians are more likely to be threatened.

3- You are trying to change the point.  He was seeking nuclear materials.  This is a verified fact now.

Also, the US is fully capable of producing weaponized small pox yet it is not.  Just because someone does not do something does not mean they cannot.

[Niles Caulder]

Thank you, NF!  Astounding little oasis you guys have here!  I was entirely baffled what the "O-"[state] label signified, but your signature educated me.

I certainly don't claim Republicans don't utilize fear to motivate; that would be foolish...but right as I'm writing this post, Al Sharpton's speech has just finished...and dang!  Get real...can it be denied that Democrats do not demonize and encourage fear of Republicans?  Do the liberals of this post wish us NOT to fear Bush, and the consequences of his "inept/tyrannical/corrupt" rule?

Wow:  Sharpton has just knifed Kerry...stunned the "positive" tone and agenda to a halt.  The media is reeling and the spinsters are hard on defense.

The 2000 ballots of Florida are washed in the blood of civil rights activists and four little girls in a church!

Whoa nelly!

[dazzleman]

Maybe you wouldn't be so cynical about "fear" had you been in New York on Sept. 11 as I was.

Bush is not conjuring fear about what might happen - something terrible has already happened, and the Islamic fundamentalists plan even worse things.

To speak frankly about this is not to encourage fear.  It is far more irresponsible to pretend the problem doesn't exist, as the Democrats wish to do.

[MODU]

Agreed.  DC here.

[TheWildCard]

Lets see if there was an attack and the Government wasn't warning the public of this posibility then who'd get blamed for not warning us? Yeah thats right Bush would!

I personally rather be warned then just go out there and not have any clue of whats going on.

[khirkhib]

1. They suspected that he might have weopons and so they were  investigating to make sure he didn't.  They didn't want to invade a country's sovreignty on a mistake and had the inspections been allowed to continue either their suspecians would have been verified and the world united would have removed Sadam or they would have found, as was the case, that they didn't have weopons and they would have continued making sure that Sadam couldn't get those weopons (which he wasn't able to get under sanctions and the world could encourage the people to take control of their country so that the people can develop their own sense of national pride.  You should not go on a costly, unpredictiable, and dangerous  line of war on very vague and very wrong suspicians.

2.  The Iraqi ties were minor and their were stronger ties to Al Queda with organizations in the US than their were with Organizations or government in Iraq before the invasion.  You can not deny that Al Queda has a stronger presence in Iraq after the invasion than before.

3.  Hey he was a tyrant.  He was terrible.  We should have done more to make sure the Iraqi people were fed during the Santions.  Hell we should have helped the Shiite's who rose up and tried to take Saddam out when the time was right in the early 90s.  During the sanctions however Saddam was not able to make WMDs because the proof is in the pudding.  No weopons, no capability.

1- They were not suspicions, every nation with an intel report on Iraq said he had them, not that he might, but we're not sure.  Show me one nation that said he did not have them.

The inspectors did find violations of the sanctions, by the way.

2- Yes, there were and probably still are ties to organizations inside the US.  Many of them have been found and shut down.

Also, part of the putpose of the invasion was to bring more Al Queda members out into the open in Iraq rather than to other US interests where US civilians are more likely to be threatened.

3- You are trying to change the point.  He was seeking nuclear materials.  This is a verified fact now.

Also, the US is fully capable of producing weaponized small pox yet it is not.  Just because someone does not do something does not mean they cannot.

1.  Yes unconfirmed suspicions that were being investigated and further investigation would have found jack.  Because their was jack and I would have been fine with inspectors in there for 20 years if it meant that Sadam was not able to get weapons of mass destruction and 900 Americans were not dead.

2. See this is one of those reasons that you make as you go.  The thing is I don't know so much as it is drawing Al Queda to Iraq as it is the biggest marketing Bananza taht Al Queda has ever gotten.  These are new terrorirsts that were recruited after the war in Afghanistan.  Al Queda is growing because of the invasion of Iraq and the image that the US is projecting.

3.  And he is a nut job.  The point is he was not capable of more than pipe dreams.  

[MarkDel]

Maybe you wouldn't be so cynical about "fear" had you been in New York on Sept. 11 as I was.

Bush is not conjuring fear about what might happen - something terrible has already happened, and the Islamic fundamentalists plan even worse things.

To speak frankly about this is not to encourage fear.  It is far more irresponsible to pretend the problem doesn't exist, as the Democrats wish to do.

Yeah, or had friends jump out of a burning skyscraper...but hey, there's no reason to fear terrorism, after all, if we just "understand" the terrorists they won't want to kill us any more. And then we can all go to Starbucks in our Birkenstocks, drink lattes and sing ing "Kumbiya" while we talk about the true evil in our lives...global warming, and how animals have the same rights as people...

[khirkhib]

Hey we have to do all that we can to stop terrorism.    Terrorism is very bad and we should guard the ports, we should protect chemical plants and nuclear power plants, we should guard our borders and have prtoection is airports.  But we shouldn't drop the ball on everything else there are other things that are bad too, that kill americans, that are threats to our happiness and prosperity.  

I thought I would check the stats though to make sure.  The leading causes of death in 2001, the 15 causes that account for 83.4% of deaths were.

1) heart disease
2) cancer
3) stroke
4) lung disease
5) Accidents - unintentional including car accidents
6) diabetes
7) Influenza and pneumonia,
8) Alzheimer’s disease
9) kidney disease
10) Septicemia
11) suicide
12) liver disease and cirrhosis
13) Assault - homicide
14) Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension), and


15) Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids - had to look this one up

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is usually an occupational disease in which exposure to organic dusts, fungus, or molds leads to acute and then, over time, chronic lung disease. Exposure may also occur in the home, from fungus present in humidifiers, heating systems, and air conditioners. Some people may have hobbies that can lead to exposure, such as owning birds.

---------------------------------------------------------

So on assault homicide:

The 15 leading causes of death in 2001 remained what they were in 2000, although homicide changed places with hypertension, becoming the 13th leading cause of death in 2001 from the 14th in 2000. The increase in the rank of homicide was due to the addition of deaths that resulted from the September11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The dramatic rise in the homicide rate was primarily a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that added 2,926 certified resident deaths to this category. Without the additional deaths resulting from the terrorist attacks,the homicide rate would have increased by 3.4 percent.

You have .1% chance of dying in a terrorist attack.  That doesnt mean you don't do anything what it means is you take measures to protect yourself but you can't let yourself live in fear.

I mean 22,242 people died from poisoning (63.4% accidental and sates are closing poison hotlines because of lack of funds.) Basically your 10 times more likely to accidentally poison yourself.

Lets do everything we can about solving terrorist but I refuse to let the government make me cower.

More lives will be saved by researching stem cell research than our current and inadaquote protection against terrorists.

http:// [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf [/ur]

[teri]

I am fearful that a Kerry Administration would be just as successful in fighting terrorism as the Clinton Administration.

Oh no, I guess the Republican campaign strategy worked!

[??????????]

Hey we have to do all that we can to stop terrorism.    Terrorism is very bad and we should guard the ports, we should protect chemical plants and nuclear power plants, we should guard our borders and have prtoection is airports.  But we shouldn't drop the ball on everything else there are other things that are bad too, that kill americans, that are threats to our happiness and prosperity.  

I thought I would check the stats though to make sure.  The leading causes of death in 2001, the 15 causes that account for 83.4% of deaths were.

1) heart disease
2) cancer
3) stroke
4) lung disease
5) Accidents - unintentional including car accidents
6) diabetes
7) Influenza and pneumonia,
Alzheimer’s disease
9) kidney disease
10) Septicemia
11) suicide
12) liver disease and cirrhosis
13) Assault - homicide
14) Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension), and


15) Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids - had to look this one up

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is usually an occupational disease in which exposure to organic dusts, fungus, or molds leads to acute and then, over time, chronic lung disease. Exposure may also occur in the home, from fungus present in humidifiers, heating systems, and air conditioners. Some people may have hobbies that can lead to exposure, such as owning birds.

---------------------------------------------------------

So on assault homicide:

The 15 leading causes of death in 2001 remained what they were in 2000, although homicide changed places with hypertension, becoming the 13th leading cause of death in 2001 from the 14th in 2000. The increase in the rank of homicide was due to the addition of deaths that resulted from the September11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The dramatic rise in the homicide rate was primarily a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that added 2,926 certified resident deaths to this category. Without the additional deaths resulting from the terrorist attacks,the homicide rate would have increased by 3.4 percent.

You have .1% chance of dying in a terrorist attack.  That doesnt mean you don't do anything what it means is you take measures to protect yourself but you can't let yourself live in fear.

I mean 22,242 people died from poisoning (63.4% accidental and sates are closing poison hotlines because of lack of funds.) Basically your 10 times more likely to accidentally poison yourself.

Lets do everything we can about solving terrorist but I refuse to let the government make me cower.

More lives will be saved by researching stem cell research than our current and inadaquote protection against terrorists.

http:// [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf [/ur]

You'd be a fool to dismiss terrorism as just a "minor" threat.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

More lives will be saved by researching stem cell research than our current and inadaquote protection against terrorists.

I would rather die at 35 with a clear conscience, than live a life extended as a result of harvesting human beings to be used as lab rats.

I say this as someone who may well end up with Alzheimer’s.  Adult stem cell research only, please.