Suitably Flip

Let's Play Cards

At the risk of (further) raising Senator Clinton's ire about playing the "fear card" (terrorism is scary, Hillary; evil, suicidal men with airplanes: scary), I'm hoping the President will regale us with details of some of the other big wins we've notched up since 9/11.

We've had the blessed luxury of drifting into a relative complacency in the last 4+ years, cruising along stupefyingly attack-free.  The twisted consequence of our having enjoyed this unexpected and sustained homeland tranquility, however, is that many have found it within themselves to shake off some of the immediate impetus for hyper-vigilance (leading to long and winding auxiliary pursuits like chiding the President for discharging his well-precedented executive war-time responsibilities and fretting over something as asinine as whether Americans have force-fed hunger striking detainees).  In this sense, the resounding success we've had in safeguarding our homeland has conspired with mouthy political detractors to rail against the canons of the successful initiative itself.

I suppose any effort in which success is characterized by non-events is doomed to similar thanklessness.  That's why it was so satisfying to hear the President outline some of the details of the thwarted 2002 attack on Los Angeles.  Not only did it lend visceral credit to the forces keeping us safe, it also reminded us that our often nameless, shadowy enemy is indeed made up of tangible faces and names - actual evil people on a mission to destroy actual tall buildings with actual live Americans inside.

But the Library Tower plot was just the first on the list of 10 foiled plots here and abroad that the President outlined last fall.  I can appreciate that the circumstances surrounding many of them may be unsharable for various reasons.  Still, to the extent that the details of some are fit for public consumption, I'm hankering for the feature length skinny on the rest of these:

1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.
2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.
3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.
4. The 2004 UK Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.
5. The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the Spring of 2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.
6. The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 9/11 operational figure.
7. The 2004 UK Plot: In the Spring of 2004 the U.S. and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the UK.
8. The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qa'ida operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.
9. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot: In 2002 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.
10. The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

Whaddaya say, W?  Tell us another story.  Just one more before bed?

Would this be playing the "fear card" as Mrs. Clinton suggests?  Of course not.  It'd be playing the "Hey, we're winning - let's watch the highlight reel and high five each other and shake our fists at our common enemy!" card.

Politically speaking, it's true of course that issues of security strongly favor Republicans.  Then again, that's no accident.  The disparity between the public's trust in Republicans and Democrats to wage a serious War on Terror doesn't owe to any clever rhetoric or masterful strategic maneuvering by Karl Rove.  Republicans prevail on this issue quite simply because they've demonstrated time and again that it is their priority - that they're willing to do what's necessary to wage a successful campaign against a relentless, intractable, mass murderous enemy.  Democrats can pay lip service to the issue, insisting that they "take a back seat to no one" in fighting terror, but when it comes time to vote, the truth is laid painfully bare.

If Hillary and her ilk want to neutralize the "fear card" they ought to swallow their pride, concede that they're on the wrong side of the issue, and trade talking tough for voting tough.  It might require some humility in the short run, but it's a far more navigable (not to mention more ingenuous) path than trying to convince the American public that a fear of being blown up by a worldwide network of evil people, who quite demonstrably are dying to do so, is somehow irrational.

---

Tracked at Stop the ACLU

Comments

Let's Play Cards

At the risk of (further) raising Senator Clinton's ire about playing the "fear card" (terrorism is scary, Hillary; evil, suicidal men with airplanes: scary), I'm hoping the President will regale us with details of some of the other big wins we've notched up since 9/11.

We've had the blessed luxury of drifting into a relative complacency in the last 4+ years, cruising along stupefyingly attack-free.  The twisted consequence of our having enjoyed this unexpected and sustained homeland tranquility, however, is that many have found it within themselves to shake off some of the immediate impetus for hyper-vigilance (leading to long and winding auxiliary pursuits like chiding the President for discharging his well-precedented executive war-time responsibilities and fretting over something as asinine as whether Americans have force-fed hunger striking detainees).  In this sense, the resounding success we've had in safeguarding our homeland has conspired with mouthy political detractors to rail against the canons of the successful initiative itself.

I suppose any effort in which success is characterized by non-events is doomed to similar thanklessness.  That's why it was so satisfying to hear the President outline some of the details of the thwarted 2002 attack on Los Angeles.  Not only did it lend visceral credit to the forces keeping us safe, it also reminded us that our often nameless, shadowy enemy is indeed made up of tangible faces and names - actual evil people on a mission to destroy actual tall buildings with actual live Americans inside.

But the Library Tower plot was just the first on the list of 10 foiled plots here and abroad that the President outlined last fall.  I can appreciate that the circumstances surrounding many of them may be unsharable for various reasons.  Still, to the extent that the details of some are fit for public consumption, I'm hankering for the feature length skinny on the rest of these:

1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.
2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.
3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.
4. The 2004 UK Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.
5. The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the Spring of 2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.
6. The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 9/11 operational figure.
7. The 2004 UK Plot: In the Spring of 2004 the U.S. and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the UK.
8. The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qa'ida operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.
9. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot: In 2002 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.
10. The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

Whaddaya say, W?  Tell us another story.  Just one more before bed?

Would this be playing the "fear card" as Mrs. Clinton suggests?  Of course not.  It'd be playing the "Hey, we're winning - let's watch the highlight reel and high five each other and shake our fists at our common enemy!" card.

Politically speaking, it's true of course that issues of security strongly favor Republicans.  Then again, that's no accident.  The disparity between the public's trust in Republicans and Democrats to wage a serious War on Terror doesn't owe to any clever rhetoric or masterful strategic maneuvering by Karl Rove.  Republicans prevail on this issue quite simply because they've demonstrated time and again that it is their priority - that they're willing to do what's necessary to wage a successful campaign against a relentless, intractable, mass murderous enemy.  Democrats can pay lip service to the issue, insisting that they "take a back seat to no one" in fighting terror, but when it comes time to vote, the truth is laid painfully bare.

If Hillary and her ilk want to neutralize the "fear card" they ought to swallow their pride, concede that they're on the wrong side of the issue, and trade talking tough for voting tough.  It might require some humility in the short run, but it's a far more navigable (not to mention more ingenuous) path than trying to convince the American public that a fear of being blown up by a worldwide network of evil people, who quite demonstrably are dying to do so, is somehow irrational.

---

Tracked at Stop the ACLU