This will be the shortest post in the history of my submitting here. Rejoice!

And I’ll see you all at the polls in November.

“I agree with you that their motives are fear. And if I were in Bush’s shoes I would be greatly feared too – of another occurrence of 9/11 or an even worse one.”

I don’t think Bush is fearful of another terrorist attack and therefore acts accordingly out of pure necessity. Although this may be one element, more importantly to me is that I see Bush using this displaced fear as a means to build momentum in the populace for unrelated agendas.

There was an unending and immediate fear of instant nuclear annihilation of all civilization for 50 years in the last half of the 20th century. It could be argued that the danger of assured mutual destruction from our enemies in that time was more immediate and deadlier than any potential terrorist threat today. Yet during the Cold War, those in charge of the government rarely used fear as an everyday impetus to pursue unrelated agendas in regards to their political parameters, which is what I’ve seen done in this administration.

In my view, Bush and those who have molded his administration have misused their position in history to corrode essential elements of American government, blurring the lines of the three branches and unnecessarily bloating government and expanding executive power in ways that don’t really help fight terrorism (or any enemy for that matter).

Whether or not this was done in the name of ‘protecting’ me, doesn’t matter to me. A parent can protect me from the dangers of the world by locking me in the basement, but that doesn’t make it the correct move. Likewise, the decisions of the Bush administration may have been “in the name” of protection, but that doesn’t mean they are always correct, simply because they were done “in that name”.
And the Congress’ kow-towing has been even worse. Whether you agree with the legislation that has been pursued abusing fear of terror as an impetus to stymie dissent is beside the point. Massaging mass fear into the populace in order to keep them submissive and porous for the rest of your agenda is an abuse of power any way you cut it.

Kennedy didn’t exploit the missile crisis in Cuba to scare the American populace in order to pursue civil rights legislation or increase the power of unions. “Today’s Cuban Nuclear Threat Level is Code Orange. Americans should be fearful for their very lives yet stay the course in fighting the Godless Commies that want to kill you. Oh, and I need to pass this transportation bill.” Truman tried to take over the steel mills and was shot down- that was in an era where oversight meant something, when our government was still functioning as a democracy of checks and balances. It speaks to the limits of the presidency, and how Congress shouldn’t act as a rubber stamp for the wants of a particular administration, even one that may parallel much of their own agenda, ESPECIALLY during wartime.

I’m not afraid of terrorists. I AM afraid that I may wake up one day in a democratic dictatorship, rather than a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I’m more afraid of that than any hypothetical terrorist attack.

As you describe correctly, you have your opinion and I have mine. I respect that. Many, especially those in power, do not, and show this daily through their statements and actions. My concern is, as Edward Murrow said, we must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. My experience, day in and day out for 5 years now has been to endure a barrage of constant slandering, smearing, unwarranted insults from those on the right and those in power. To be called a traitor by those on the right-wing, the party that has control of most of our government, its agenda and its actions, all simply because I hold a different viewpoint, or vocally disagree with the powers that be, or dare to uphold the Constitution unconditionally, or differ in approach to foreign and domestic policy…that’s unprecedented in America since Murrow’s time. And it’s horribly disconcerting to be occurring here, in the land of the free. It means those in control may not fully understand what makes America distinct: these inalienable rights.

I have heard many an argument that tries desperately to claim because I’m vocally and constantly critical of the Bush foreign policy that this is egregious in and of itself; that somehow the terrorists win because I dare to use the very freedom the terrorists supposedly hate. I actually agree with Bush. I think terrorism is bad. I think we should protect ourselves from it. I think civil liberties are important. When he condescends in his press conferences, insisting against an imaginary opposition that we must be vigilant, as though we didn’t agree with him, I still agree we must be vigilant.

But I also think respecting the Constitution and the written law is imperative and non-negotiable. So just because I don’t agree with the WAY Bush is trying to protect us, doesn’t mean I don’t want America protected, doesn’t mean I hate America, doesn’t mean I’m a commie, doesn’t mean I’m with the terrorists. This kind of sycophantic accusation has been rampant and concerns me. I can agree with the idea that terrorism is a threat to Americans, yet disagree with the major tenets of how Bush is going about combating that threat without being a traitor. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt might think I was a consummate patriot, as he constantly harped on Woodrow Wilson for his actions in World War I.

Bush apologists regularly try to frame the conversation this dishonest manner. Scott McClellan most recently perpetrated it when, after both Democrats and Republicans voiced disapproval of Bush trying to ignore FISA, that insisting on judicial oversight of the executive branch’s actions was tantamount to Democrats arguing “that we shouldn’t be listening to Al Qaeda communications.” Such a statement is absurd. It’s that kind of bald-faced dishonesty in the forum that makes it impossible to have a coherent discussion with anyone, for the most fundamental elements of the conservative rhetoric is from a foundation of dishonesty.

As far as correlating today with bygone eras- It’s just sad when the need to justify the actions of today’s administration can’t be found within is a false analogy with the sole purpose of either stroking the comfort level of supporters or the anger of dissenters. Comparing Bush to Lincoln and the Iraq War to the Civil War is just as false as comparing Bush to Hitler and the Iraq War to World War II. The differences are stark, and any comparison is politically motivated, not analytically. My entire point throughout all of this is that political diatribes such as the ones on this site are perfectly fine, so long as they’re seen for what they are: politically motivated opinions. They are not articulate, well-reasoned, well-rounded, incontrovertible analysis. And whether you believe me or believe someone else, you are a true patriot if you understand that.

You state “I refuse to have my nation’s foreign and domestic policy run by people who base their every move on the exploitation of fear . . .” I agree with you that their motives are fear. And if I were in Bush’s shoes I would be greatly feared too – of another occurrence of 9/11 or an even worse one. I believe the Bush administration is trying to do the right thing. I may be wrong but I do not believe there is a cold blooded effort on his part to profit from fear. You disagree? Fine, but that does not make you wrong nor me right – and nor will the polls of this or any other November prove the rightness or wrongness of either position.

You study history in order to learn from it. Simply said but not so simply done. You can try to equate today’s situation with another one from history and you will still not find a pure correlation. The article Rick presented, from The American Thinker, was one way to approach it from a historical perspective. Was it all inclusive? No. But was it wrong? You got your opinion, so do I. See Ya!

God forbid this were to happen. But to put it in perspective, if there had been tragedies similar to 9/11 every single month in the United States for the entire year, you STILL would be more likely to die in a car accident than at the hands of a terrorist. Talk up all the ‘doomsday scenarios’ and ‘dire consequences’ you want. You’re much more likely to have your ‘head chopped off’ by a drunk in a Camero than by some terrorist sleeper cell. Do you support a Patriot Act granting the U.S. government right to confiscate your car today without going through the conventional legal channels? I’d suspect not.

But you shouldn’t be so fearful, right? Especially with Bush keeping us “safe”. Or do you have so little faith in Bush’s policies that every day after work you must cringe in fear in the fetal position every day while wearing a kevlar suit, sucking your thumb behind bullet proof glass in your bomb shelter three stories underground? I refuse to have my nation’s foreign and domestic policy run by people who base their every move on the exploitation of fear to expand the scope and power of the federal government while consolidating their own power within that government. See you at the polls in November!

Diebold? Are you so afraid of “people that will cut my head off” that you’ll give up verifying that your vote is counted correctly? You must be kidding, barbaram. why wouldn’t you be concerned that diebold refuses to give a paper trail?

That’s the problem with conservative neocons. They’re so full of fear that they’re willing to give up their liberties. It’s a treasonous line of thinking if i’ve ever heard one. You didn’t hear Patrick Henry shouting “give me liberty, but make sure nobody cuts off my head.”